[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 177 (Friday, November 18, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H7841-H7874]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROPOSING A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution
466, proceedings will now resume on the motion to suspend the rules and
pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 2) proposing a balanced budget
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. When proceedings were postponed on Thursday,
November 17, 2011, 2 hours and 42\1/2\ minutes of debate remained on
the motion.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) has 1 hour and 27\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 1
hour and 15 minutes remaining.
Without objection, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) will control
the time of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas.
General Leave
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on House Joint Resolution
2, as amended, currently under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Yesterday, we began debate on the balanced budget amendment, debate
that I hope culminates today with a bipartisan two-thirds vote in its
favor. The American people of all political stripes and from all walks
of life demand we pass this amendment. Recent polling by CNN indicates
that a constitutional amendment to require a balanced Federal budget
garners more than 70 percent support among men, women, whites,
nonwhites, every age group, every income level, and people from every
region of the country. Why do Americans overwhelmingly support a
balanced budget amendment? Because they understand that unending
Federal deficits wreck our economy and steal prosperity from future
generations.
President Obama has set the wrong kind of new record. The national
debt has increased faster under his administration than under any other
President in history. This runaway government spending paralyzes the
job market, erodes confidence among America's employers, and has caused
the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression.
The balanced budget amendment is not an untested idea. Forty-nine
States
[[Page H7842]]
have some form of a balanced budget requirement. We are overdue to
adopt a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. We must stop the
flood of deficit spending that threatens to drown future generations of
Americans in a sea of debt.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I welcome the continuation of this discussion about an incredibly
important proposal.
We gather here today to determine whether we should add one more
amendment to the 27 amendments to the Constitution that have been
enacted since the last part of the 18th century when our country was
formed. I was reviewing something that a former chairman of our
committee said in the 104th Congress, and I refer to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois, Henry Hyde, who said in effect that he
realized that the Republican Congress when he was there would not be
able to balance the budget without using retiree funds in the Social
Security trust fund. I think I'm being assured in this debate that that
will not happen in the present time.
Here's what Henry Hyde said: ``If you exclude receipts from the
revenue that are received by the Social Security System from computing
the total revenues of the government, if you take it out of the
equation, then the cuts that are necessary to reach a balanced budget
become draconian. They become 22 to 30 percent, and you know that we
cannot and will not cut programs that we want to subsist and continue
by 22 to 30 percent.
{time} 1010
``You have to compute Social Security receipts in determining the
income of this government so that the cuts you make to balance the
budget are liveable and not impossible.''
Henry Hyde was right then and his statement is correct now. Under the
proposal that we are discussing today, our Nation's savings--the money
taken out of every American's paycheck could be looted, in effect, to
pay for other things and to balance the budget, and it would take the
trust out of the Social Security Trust Fund.
The Ryan budget would cut Social Security's service delivery below
current maintenance levels by more than $10 billion over 10 years,
including a $400 million cut in 2012. This sort of drastic cutting will
prove devastating to seniors as more aging boomers retire to rely on
field office services, initial benefit claims, processing, disability
determinations, and hearing decisions over the next 10 years.
So I appeal to the kinder nature of my friends in the House. Please
recognize that Henry Hyde was correct then and he is correct now, that
we cannot achieve what this amendment proposes to do without going into
Social Security receipts. And I think that that would be objectionable
and unwise on the part of all of us here, and that would be
unacceptable to the citizens of our country.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Balanced Budget Caucus, I
rise in strong support of the balanced budget amendment we are going to
take up on the House floor today.
I've heard many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say
this is not the time to take this up, but now is exactly the time we
should be taking this up.
In 1995, a balanced budget amendment passed the House with bipartisan
support, only to lose by one vote in the United States Senate. Then,
the national debt was $4.8 trillion. This week, the national debt hit
$15 trillion. We have added $10 trillion to our debt in 16 years. That
is $10 trillion in debt that threatens our job growth, our national
security and our sovereignty, and our Nation's children. And that's $10
trillion in debt that could have been avoided had the balanced budget
amendment passed.
We simply must stop spending money we don't have if we are going to
give our economy a chance to grow and create jobs. Past attempts like
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, the Balanced Budget Enforcement Act, and Pay-As-
You-Go requirements have failed to bring Federal spending under
control. America needs a permanent, long-term solution. We must hold
Congress' feet to the fire and pass a constitutional balanced budget
amendment today.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from New York, Jerry Nadler, become the manager of this amendment from
this point on.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from New
York will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I my consume.
This amendment, while superficially appealing, is one of the most
damaging things we could do to the Constitution of the United States.
And, yes, it is true, if you ask people do they think we should have a
balanced budget, they say yes; and if you ask people do you think we
should have an amendment requiring a balanced budget in the
Constitution, they say yes. But if you ask them do you think we should
have an amendment requiring a balanced budget in the Constitution if it
meant a cut in Social Security, they say no; if it meant a cut in
Medicare, they say no; if it meant a cut in other essential services,
they say no.
And when you probe further, you find that this is a very damaging
provision. For a number of reasons, economists tell us that, in a
recession, you want to increase the government spending temporarily.
You have to increase it because unemployment insurance payouts go up,
food stamp payouts go up; and if you decrease the spending, it reduces
the amount of products that people want in society, it reduces the
amount of money in circulation, and it makes the recession into a
depression.
In good times, you should run a surplus; in recession, you should run
a deficit. Over a long period of time, the budget should be balanced.
But if you attempt to balance the budget during a recession, you
generate a much worse loss of jobs. And that's why you don't want
this--or you shouldn't want this.
Secondly, this amendment is not self-enforcing. All it says is
outlays shall not exceed receipts, and Congress can pass appropriate
legislation.
But what does that mean? It means that if outlays exceed receipts or
if someone thinks that the estimates are wrong and outlays are going to
exceed receipts, then you go to court, and then a court has to decide
whether that's correct. A court has to decide whether the estimates are
correct. And if the court decides the estimates are not correct, then
the court has a choice. It can say, ``This is political. We're going to
exercise judicial restraint,'' as the gentleman from Virginia said
yesterday, in which case it won't enforce the amendment and the
amendment is meaningless; or the court will say, ``Okay, we'll order a
tax increase'' or ``we'll order an expenditure cut,'' in which case you
have those judges making political decisions, which I don't think we'd
want to see.
Thirdly, a balanced budget amendment starting where we are now with a
huge deficit that's been accumulated over a few years means that you're
going to have to make drastic cuts in Social Security and Medicare and
veterans' benefits. Some people say on the other side of the aisle,
well, that won't be true because they don't count; but, yes, they
count.
The amendment says ``outlays.'' Outlays are defined as all
expenditures other than debts. Social Security is not a debt; the
courts have held that. Medicare is not a debt; there's no contractual
right. This means that if you're going to reduce outlays, Social
Security is right in it. And if you're not going to reduce Social
Security, you've got to reduce a lot of other things by much more. So
this is a dagger pointed at the heart of Social Security and Medicare
and veterans' benefits.
Now, we're told that the only way we can get our budget into balance
is by this amendment. Well, the fact is that's not true. The reason we
have the problem we have now is because of years of reckless Republican
Presidents and administrations.
When President Clinton took office, we had a huge budget deficit--
$300 billion a year. The forecast was for 500 and 600 billion by the
mid-nineties. Within a few years, we had turned that around. Congress
made decisions to turn that around followed by the President's
recommendations in 1993 and a smaller one in 1997. That one the
Republicans held with, with Speaker
[[Page H7843]]
Gingrich. As a result of those decisions, by the time President Clinton
left office and President Bush assumed office, we had a huge surplus.
And the question was: What are we going to do when we've paid off the
entire national debt by 2012? That was what was going to happen.
What changed that? Two huge tax cuts for rich people, pushed through
by the Republicans and President Bush. And we said, at the time, that
that would generate tremendous deficits. In fact, the reason they were
set to expire in 2010 was because the CBO said that after 2010 they
would generate tremendous, ongoing deficits, which they are doing.
Secondly, we had two unfunded wars. For the first time in American
history, we didn't raise taxes to pay for wars. Thirdly, we doubled the
Pentagon budget, not including the wars. And fourth, we had a recession
starting in 2008 during the end of the Bush administration.
Now, some people say, well, it's the Obama administration, the
unfettered spending of the Obama administration. Nonsense. The amount
of money being spent on non-defense discretionary spending--that is,
all spending other than defense--veterans' benefits, Medicare, Social
Security, and interest on the debt, is the same today, the same, not a
penny more, adjusted for inflation and population growth, as it was in
2001. And in 2001, we had a huge surplus.
Where did the surplus change to a deficit? Wars, tax cuts, and
increased Pentagon spending.
{time} 1020
Now, what can we do about this? So the problem is not spending alone,
the problem is that we're not taxing the rich and the corporations
enough. In 1970, corporations paid 30 percent of all Federal income tax
receipts from corporate income taxes. Today, it's 8 percent. We've let
the corporations get away with murder--the big businesses, with Exxon
paying no taxes on profits of $6 billion, General Electric paying no
taxes, getting a refund. That's our problem. But we don't want to deal
with that, we want to pass a constitutional amendment.
Now, if we pass this constitutional amendment, it would mean that any
time we went into a recession, it would drive it into a depression. It
would mean we would have to make huge spending cuts now. It would mean
we would have to decimate Social Security, Medicare, veterans benefits.
It makes no sense at all.
If this were in effect now--we were told by the macroeconomic
analysts that if this amendment went into effect for next year, it
would increase unemployment by 15 million people. So I urge that we not
pass this amendment, and instead we do the hard work of increasing
taxes on corporations and rich people, of getting discipline into our
expenditures. But the first thing to do is jobs. If we got unemployment
down to 5 percent, where it was in 2007, that by itself would reduce
unemployment by 40 percent.
In a recession, first you take care of the jobs. When you're back
into better times, then you can start thinking about balancing your
budget, and that's when you ought to do it; not force cuts in
expenditures or increasing taxes during a recession, which just makes
the recession much worse and the unemployment much worse, which is what
this amendment would do.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a member of the Financial
Services Committee.
Mr. PAULSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the balanced budget amendment.
Since our country was first founded, the issue of debt and government
spending has been at the forefront of the minds of our political
leaders, our national security advisors, our business owners and
citizens alike. It's obvious that our $15 trillion national debt is not
a Republican problem, it's not a Democratic problem; it's an American
problem.
Mr. Speaker, our economy has stumbled. Families are making tough
decisions, cutting spending and living within their means. However, one
thing that hasn't changed is the way that government spends the
people's money. We must work together now to resolve our spending-
driven debt crisis because the simple truth is that Washington must
stop spending money that it does not have.
Our debt crisis is a legitimate threat to our Nation's security and
our future. A nation that does not control its debt does not control
its destiny. In order to give our children and grandchildren that
secure future and economic stability we need a balanced budget. We need
this balanced budget amendment because it is a fundamental reform that
will absolutely produce results.
It's time to pass a balanced budget amendment to get government
spending under control.
Mr. NADLER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Buchanan), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Speaker, this is an historic opportunity. For the
first time in 16 years, the House will vote on a balanced budget
amendment to the Constitution.
Just this week our national debt surpassed $15 trillion. For too long
Republicans and Democrats have turned a blind eye to our government's
financial mess. Washington needs to make the tough choices necessary to
balance the budget for the sake of our children and grandchildren.
The Federal Government has balanced its budget only five times in the
last 50 years. This is unacceptable. The first bill I introduced in
Congress was the constitutional balanced budget amendment in 2007. It
simply requires the Federal Government to live within its means.
Forty-nine out of 50 States, including my home State of Florida, have
to balance their budgets. Florida, the last 4 or 5 years, has had tough
revenue years like everybody else, but they've balanced their budget.
In fact, when we got downgraded by the S&P, that same week Florida got
upgraded by their credit rating.
Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, may have put it
best when he said ``the biggest threat we have to our national security
is our debt.'' And Erskine Bowles, cochair of the President's debt
commission, said ``the debt is like a cancer; it's going to destroy the
country from within.'' They're right. And the time is right for
Congress to ratify a balanced budget amendment and send it to the
States.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I would simply point out that when S&P
downgraded our debt, they were so well respected that the interest
rates went down and the price of our bonds went up. So much for S&P.
I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, does the majority side have an
extra minute that they could spare?
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I will yield the gentleman an extra
minute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized
for 3 minutes.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the balanced budget
amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I do believe that this Congress needs rules, it needs
rules in budgeting. But I can't help but believe today that the easier
and more practical response to the huge budget deficits that we face is
going back to a tried and true method called pay-as-you-go budgeting
rules.
Pay-as-you-go budgeting was a simple concept--you've got revenue
reduction, spending increase, you've got to find an offset in the
budget to pay for it. It was a rule that was in place in the 1990s that
led to 4 years of budget surpluses. We were actually paying down the
national debt rather than adding to it.
Unfortunately, when President Bush took office, along with the
Republican majority in Congress they immediately repealed pay-as-you-go
budgeting rules which enabled them to support two wars that went unpaid
for. They had two tax cuts that went unpaid for that primarily
benefited the most wealthy in this country, and you may recall that the
main justification for those tax cuts was their fear that we were going
to pay down the national debt too fast. It was laughable then as it is
laughable today. And then they supported the largest increase in
entitlement spending since Medicare was created in 1965 with a new
prescription
[[Page H7844]]
drug bill that was not paid for. And these are ongoing financial
obligations right now, adding to the fiscal woes that we're trying to
climb out of as a Nation.
But I know that the majority today does not embrace pay-as-you-go
budgeting, even though it worked in the 1990s, even though it helped
create 27 million private sector jobs during that period and left an
era of budget surpluses. So the next best thing we have to instill some
fiscal discipline in this place is through a balanced budget amendment,
going through that laborious process of trying to find two-thirds in
the House and the Senate and then three-quarters of the States to
embrace it. And if that's what it takes to get our fiscal house in
order, to check against unbridled tax cuts that aren't paid for, or new
increase in spending that goes unpaid for, then it's a risk worth
taking because we are jeopardizing the future of our Nation, our
children's future with these ongoing budget deficits, and steps need to
be taken right now.
There is a legitimate concern, however, that Members on my side of
the aisle have been expressing--the three-fifths vote in order to
increase the debt ceiling. We saw how perilously close we came to
defaulting on our Nation's obligations over the summer. And I fear that
through this amendment a minority in this body could literally hold the
rest of our Nation hostage or paralyze the functioning of our
government or lead to the default on our obligations. I still think
that's a legitimate concern that's not addressed through this
amendment. In fact, it makes that probability more likely, and it's
something that we're going to have to address as we move forward.
But today, I think, given the lack of options that we face and the
dire situation that we have with the budget deficits and the lack of
progress, unfortunately, with the supercommittee that we've seen over
the last couple of months, that the balanced budget amendment seems
like the most practical approach given the political realities.
I urge and encourage my colleagues to support it.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a member of the
Appropriations Committee.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bipartisan Balanced
Budget Act of 2011 and urge its adoption.
My colleagues, government at all levels is mired in debt.
Mismanagement and overspending have left our Nation on the brink of
bankruptcy. Why? The math is simple. The Federal Government takes in
approximately $2.2 trillion every year but spends over $3.5 trillion.
To sustain the operations of government, we borrow 42 cents of every
Federal dollar we spend.
The implications are obvious: We're hurtling down a path toward the
most predictable financial disaster in the history of the planet.
Enough is enough. The American people want us to begin to live within
our means. They need a permanent fiscal solution.
{time} 1030
Spending cuts are important; but what Congress passes today, another
Congress and even the same Congress can undo tomorrow. The only
effective way to control spending is through an amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
Balancing budgets is not an untested idea. Over 49 States currently
abide by some sort of balanced budget amendment. Let's pass a balanced
budget amendment to the Constitution today. Let's get the job done.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, while this House does sometimes act in ways
that border on the insane, applying this constitutional straitjacket is
hardly the appropriate treatment. It basically imposes the tyranny of
the minority. Two-fifths of the Members of this House can block action.
And America has seen how well that works across the Capitol in the
United States Senate, where a three-fifths rule already applies, and
too often has rendered the Senate largely impotent, unresponsive to
public demand for action on key national issues, unable to overcome the
threat of a Republican filibuster.
Today's proposal would broaden that impotence to both sides of the
Capitol. On a critical budget question, if we take a vote in this House
and 260 people vote in the majority, and 175 vote in the minority, the
minority rules. Democracy loses.
Of course, there is a major exception to this proposed new rule, and
it is an exception that may well eat the entire rule. So long as a
majority of the House determines, probably through the fine print of
some huge, voluminous piece of legislation, that the country faces an
imminent and serious threat to its national security, well, in that
case this purported constitutional amendment is totally nullified. What
year, since 9/11, would a majority of this Congress have been unwilling
to make such a finding and render the proposal meaningless?
A constitutional amendment is not a path to a balanced budget. It is
only an excuse for Members of this body failing to cast votes to
achieve one.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. DOGGETT. I voted for a balanced budget. I voted for a balanced
budget when I voted against launching an unnecessary war on borrowed
money. I voted for a balanced budget when I voted to reject the
distorted Republican theology that when the question is taxes, less
always means more. It's political alchemy. It's like turning hay into
gold. The more the tax cut theology is proven wrong over and over and
over again, the more the Republican faithful demand another tax cut to
drive us deeper into debt.
This is the kind of extremism that causes a stage full of Republican
Presidential hopefuls to declare that they would reject any budget
agreement that cut spending by $10 if it raised taxes by even $1. A few
months ago, such irresponsibility took us to the brink of default and
jeopardized our economic recovery. They just could not overcome their
ideological restraints.
Don't jeopardize our economic future. Don't play games with veterans
and retirement security and law enforcement just because Republicans
cannot accept the economic reality, as they often cannot except basic
science.
Reject this misbegotten amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Denham), a member of the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Mr. DENHAM. I rise in support of the balanced budget amendment.
Just this week the national debt exceeded $15 trillion. That's the
bottom line: $15 trillion, and a balanced budget amendment would hold
government accountable.
Now, some say that that accountability will tie the hands of Congress
in yet one more way. Some say that this is going to create a greater
debate between revenues and spending cuts.
Well, I'd agree on both. The same way that every American family has
to balance their budget every week, every month, every year, the same
way that I, as a small business owner, have to pay my bills every week,
every month, every year, we owe this country the opportunity to not
only see a balanced budget, but a bipartisan effort here in Congress.
If you want more job creation, we have to have certainty. Before a
company is going to go out there and hire new employees, they need
certainty, not only to see that our country is on the right path, not
only to see that we're actually going to reduce our debt, but also
taking a look at our credit rating to make sure that we actually are
creditworthy and have a long-term plan. That type of certainty will
create jobs in this country. That type of certainty is what's needed
with a balanced budget amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that families are able to
borrow to pay for the car and to pay for the mortgage. Under this
amendment the Federal Government would never be able to borrow. It's
quite different.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Boswell).
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 2. An
amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring that the
Congress pass a balanced budget is something I've
[[Page H7845]]
long supported and will continue to support. I'll try to tell you why.
I greatly respect and I hear Mr. Conyers and my friend, Mr. Nadler. I
understand their strong feelings, and I would concur with many of them.
I'd like to thank the gentleman from Virginia, my good friend Mr.
Goodlatte, for his efforts to bring this bipartisan resolution to the
floor. I also want to thank him for resisting the efforts of some in
his party to enshrine the disastrous fiscal policies of the Tea Party
into our Constitution.
My colleagues, our budget is broken. After years of special interest
handouts on both the revenue and spending ledgers, we now have a system
that requires us to borrow over $1 trillion just to meet our basic
obligations.
Why? Why do we borrow? Has anybody in this body ever really asked
this question?
It seems we borrow because there is not the political will in this
body to make the difficult decisions in our country that we need to do.
We're elected leaders. We're elected to lead. But when it comes to the
long-term fiscal imbalance our Nation faces, many in this body seem to
be more interested in securing the next election than securing the
safety and soundness of our fiscal future.
And no one party's at fault. Both parties are responsible for the
financial mess we're facing. Our national debt did not reach its
current level overnight, although we seem to have amnesia, what
happened in September of '08 when Secretary Paulson came to talk to us
about the sky was falling. But the problem has been decades in the
making, with the current economic climate making the issue that much
more visible.
These are serious times, and serious times call for serious people to
make serious decisions; and we know what these decisions must be. We
cannot cut our way out of this mess, and we cannot and should not tax
our way out of this mess. We need, quite simply, a balanced approach
that gets us to a balanced budget.
If I could tell you a situation in my home State, when I was
appropriations chair, we were faced with a budget that was breaking the
constitution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. BOSWELL. And so we decided to take it on. We were breaking our
constitution in the State, and we took it on. And we worked with
downtown, we worked with everybody across the State, and we came up
with a solution and it's working. There's money in the bank in Iowa.
The unemployment rate is around 6 percent, and that's something we need
to be striving to achieve here. We can do it.
What we have left out in this that we need to consider as we go
through the steps is how do we include the revenue side of it. We had a
revenue piece. But it's working. And it'll work here.
We can do this. Let's work together. I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. I rise in support of the bipartisan balanced budget
amendment. I want to thank my colleagues, Congressman Goodlatte and
others, who have worked on this effort, and really urge my colleagues
that this is the time that we need to come together to act on behalf of
the better interest of our Nation.
Clearly, a majority of the citizens I represent in the San Joaquin
Valley agree that Washington needs to get its fiscal house in order.
We all want a balanced budget, but too few are willing to make an
agreement that will move us toward that goal. That's why the passage of
the constitutional amendment requiring the Federal Government to live
within its means is an important step. But it is only a step.
To balance our budget, Members of both parties still have to come
together to set priorities and, yes, make compromises and shared
sacrifices to produce fair, balanced budgets each year. And never has
the need been ever so clear.
Our national debt recently surpassed the GDP for the first time since
World War II. Each American's share of the debt is now greater than
their average salary. Congress could have acted sooner, but we haven't;
and we can no longer afford to wait.
{time} 1040
The bipartisan passage of this balanced budget amendment is an
important and necessary step toward a sound fiscal future, and as a
cosponsor, we should pass this measure. But we also should reach a
larger agreement with the supercommittee that's fair and balanced on
entitlement reform and revenues. If we do so, we will begin to restore
the confidence by the American public that we can work together to get
our economy back on track and create the jobs that all Americans want.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 4 minutes to
a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
Mr. NEAL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, earlier this week Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan
adviser, who recently testified before the Ways and Means Committee,
commented about the Republicans' balanced budget amendment. He stated:
``The proposal that Republican leaders plan to bring up is, frankly,
nuts. The truth is that Republicans don't care one whit about actually
balancing the budget. They prefer to delude voters with the pie-in-the-
sky promises that amending the Constitution will painlessly solve our
budget problems.''
Mr. Speaker, the mystical date here is January 19, 2001. Bill Clinton
says goodbye and leaves a surplus not subject, by the way, to opinion
today but subject to fact of $5.7 trillion. So the decision is made to
cut taxes in 2001 by a trillion dollars. The decision is made in 2003
to cut taxes by $1.3 trillion, and then subsequently to engage in a war
in Iraq based upon the faulty premise of weapons of mass destruction.
Now, our Republican friends often come to the microphone and say
things like, well, we all spent too much money. No, I didn't spend too
much money. I voted against the war in Iraq. I voted against the Bush
tax cuts. I voted against their prescription benefit proposal.
Our friend from New Jersey a moment ago said the math is clear. But
for Republicans, why is the math only clear when Bill Clinton is
President and Barack Obama is President? They ran these deficits
through the roof. There is no escaping that conclusion.
The budget has been balanced five times since the end of World War
II, four of those times during the Clinton Presidency. Twenty-two
million jobs were created during those years. This is the equivalent of
using a Luger to clean the wax out of our ears.
This proposal is beyond the pale. They ran across the country for the
last 2 years with the Tea Party-types saying, Have you read the bill?
Yes, we've read the bill, and we've come to the conclusion this is a
reckless pursuit of defying our constitutional responsibility when
we've already demonstrated that we can accomplish these ends without
disturbing the Constitution that they attempted during the campaign
cycle to merit.
Let's honor the Constitution, the Tea Party said. And today what do
they propose? Disturbing the Constitution after their financial
malfeasance for 8 years.
This argument they bring to the floor today is a political gimmick.
George Bush, Sr., lobbied me on the amendment many years ago when it
failed, and respectfully I pointed out to him that it was nothing more
than political theater. When President Bush, Jr., invited me to the
White House to discuss his tax cut proposal in 2001 a matter of days
after his assumption of the Presidency, he said this is the people's
money. And he's right.
But guess what? It's the people's responsibility to honor those
veterans hospitals for 35,000 men and women who have served us
honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan who are going to need our care for
decades to come. It's the people's responsibility on Social Security,
the greatest antipoverty program in history. It's the people's
responsibility on Medicare, which has added years to life and life to
years.
This proposal today overdoes it. There are enough men and women of
goodwill in this institution to assemble for the purpose of getting on
to a balanced budget without taking this pursuit of dishonoring our
Constitution when we should be doing this on our
[[Page H7846]]
own right now as the law has prescribed.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a member of the Transportation Committee.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman, and I particularly want to thank
Mr. Goodlatte for his extraordinary leadership on this issue. We both
supported a virtually identical amendment in 1995.
Now, when I first came to Congress, I did not support a balanced
budget amendment to the Constitution. I said things similar to my good
friend and colleague Mr. Neal from Massachusetts: It's a gimmick. We
don't need it. People will come together. We can make these decisions.
It didn't take me long in observing the Congress to realize that
there's an infinite capacity in this Congress to kick the can down the
road. And the problem is that can's getting pretty darn heavy to kick
down the road, and it's going to land on the next generation with full
force--$15 trillion of debt. For the first time since World War II,
this year our deficit exceeds the gross domestic product.
Now, we're going to have to force people to make tough decisions.
That's a conclusion I came to when I changed and I supported the
amendment back in the mid-nineties.
Now, just think about it. It passed the House, failed by one vote in
the Senate. And had that become the law of the land, today we would be
paying down the last of the debt. We might still be in this hole
economically that we're in, but we would actually then perhaps have the
capacity and the will to go out and borrow a couple of hundred billion
dollars to rebuild the Nation's crumbling infrastructure. We could
afford it. But in this environment with this amount of debt, that's a
very tough sell around here.
This is an honest balanced budget amendment. It does not prejudice
the debate between taxes--and there are many on that side who object to
any new taxes or revenue--and spending cuts--and there are many on my
side who object to many spending cuts. It does not discriminate. It's
fair. It's evenhanded.
There were many on the Republican side who preferred one that would
have tied the hands of Congress, said, No, you need a 66 percent vote
to have taxes; no, you have to be limited to 18 percent of GDP. But,
no, they brought forward something that is fair, and it would be
something that would force Members of Congress and future Members of
Congress to make the tough decisions that we have to make.
A lot of talk about Social Security. I'm an expert on Social
Security. Social Security is the largest creditor of the United States
of America, $2.66 trillion. We have to have the capability to redeem
that debt to pay future Social Security benefits in the not-distant
future when we have to draw on what's called a trust fund. It's not a
trust fund. It's government bonds. It's debt. And if we keep adding to
the pile of debt, will we have the capability to repay those Social
Security bonds?
And there's a long-term problem with Social Security. I have a bill
to fix that. Lift the cap on wages. I didn't notice that--many on my
side have been down here carrying on about the attack on Social
Security in this bill; they're not on my bill. Because that's a tough
thing to say, we're going to make people over 250 pay the same amount
of tax as people who earn less than 250.
That's a solution long term. But short term we've got to worry about
being able to redeem those bonds and pay promised benefits of Social
Security.
And then a lot of talk about the debt limit. Well, when we're in
balance, you're going to have to have a 60 percent vote to deficit
spend, and you would need a 60 percent vote for an increase on the debt
limit. I would say that they could be done at exactly the same time. It
requires the same number of votes. Is someone going to vote today to
say we're in balance, to vote in deficit to deal with the economic
situation today, perhaps to fund infrastructure investments, and then
vote later on today against raising the debt limit by that same amount?
That would just vitiate their earlier vote. So I don't think that
that's a real threat.
If you vote ``no,'' you're assuming that we have an infinite capacity
to borrow money to pass on to future generations and still meet our
obligations to the American people. I don't believe that. We need
limits. We need to be forced to make tough decisions, and this would
force future Congresses to make those tough decisions.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that if this amendment
passed, we would never be able to borrow money to do the infrastructure
that we need.
I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. I suspect we're about to enter into a west coast
debate here. My good friend from Oregon brings a perspective a little
north of California, and I would like to bring to this discussion a
perspective of California.
{time} 1050
For more than 30 years, California has lived under a constitutional
amendment much like this constitutional amendment--a constitutional
amendment that in the State of California requires a supermajority vote
for raising taxes and for the budget itself. It's very similar to what
is required here. The only difference is, in California, it was two-
thirds; here it's 60 percent.
One only need look at the extraordinary dysfunction that California
has endured in the intervening 30 years since that constitutional
amendment went into effect. It has become a situation in California
where we went from the very best--the very, very best--education system
in this Nation, both K-12 and higher education; the best infrastructure
in this Nation; and the most robust economy in this Nation to one in
which we've had perpetual political gridlock because of the
supermajority requirement.
So I bring to this House my own 35 years of experience with a
constitution that does impose a supermajority but that has simply not
worked to the benefit of the State of California. To visit such a thing
upon the United States, in my view, in my experience of 35 years in
public life in California, would be a great disaster for the United
States, one in which we would have perpetual gridlock.
Already in this House this year, my Republican colleagues are very
upset about the United States Senate not being able to do anything
because of the 60-vote requirement. The Republicans keep talking about
the 19 jobs bills that are over there that are tied up. It's the 60-
vote requirement that has tied them up in the Senate. Last year it was
the Democrats who were complaining about the Senate not being able to
move because of the 60-vote requirement in the Senate.
Do we want that also here in the House? I would hope not.
I would ask us to back away from what is politically expedient. We
all understand this. We've all been in this a long time. We understand
the political expedience about the sound bite, about the way in which
it appears. We are taking action to solve the deficit. Please, look at
California. Look at what has happened to California over the last 35
years.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I would also ask you to take a look at the fact that,
even with that supermajority vote, California has perpetually run a
deficit because it could not bring into balance the revenues and the
outlays because the outlays were required by the reality of the
economy, by the reality of the people.
This is a very, very important vote, and I bring to this House my
experience of what a supermajority vote has meant to the State of
California.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming, a member of the Armed Services Committee.
Mr. FLEMING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I've listened carefully to the debate today, and I've listened to the
other side.
Mr. Speaker, this body is hopelessly addicted to excessive spending
and budget deficits--hopelessly. On the other side, those who argue
that we should not have a balanced budget
[[Page H7847]]
amendment are hopelessly in denial, just like drug addicts are in
denial about their addictions. We have 535 Members, if you include the
Senate, who compete with one another to see how much money we can
spend, and we have an executive branch that does the same. Republican
or Democrat--it doesn't matter--we all do the same thing. There is
absolutely no control--or governor, if you will--on our excessive
spending.
Let's put this in perspective.
In the 235 years since the founding of this great country, we have
added $10.6 trillion to the national debt. In the 2\1/2\ years of this
Presidency, we have increased that by 50 percent, an addition of $5
trillion. We just passed the $15 trillion debt level. At the current
rate--and this is not just a projection; this is set in stone--by the
end of the first term of President Obama's, we will have increased the
national debt by 70 percent. This is just in that one term of 4 years.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot do this based on our willingness to balance
the budget. We are incapable of doing that. We are addicted to
spending. We are in denial about this, and it's time that we do
something. I stand in support of H.J. Res. 2, a balanced budget
amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Frankly, I would
like to see a more restrictive form, a more severe form that controls
the possibility of added taxes, but I will vote for this.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. FLEMING. Just in closing, I would like to say that it does some
wonderful things.
It prohibits a debt increase without a three-fourths vote, and it
requires the President to submit a balanced budget each year. Our
Senate over there has yet to pass a budget resolution in 3 years. It
also provides for a waiver in a time of war.
Point of Order
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I would like to know if I can be against the
balanced budget amendment without being compared to being a drug
addict. Is that doable in this body to maintain some comity? I believe
in helping my constituents, but my support of spending isn't tied to a
drug addiction.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a point of
order.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. It's not a point of order that the gentleman
has made reference to those of us who are opposed to a balanced budget
amendment as having been addicted to drugs? Is that a problem for the
comity of this Chamber, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman demanding that the words be
taken down?
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I am not prepared to go that far. I'd like
to hear the gentleman's explanation.
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, I ask for regular order. This is
ridiculous.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. The gentleman needs to be very careful
because I can actually have them read that back to you again.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana will suspend.
The gentleman from Illinois will suspend.
The Chair asks again, Does the gentleman wish that the words be taken
down?
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I withdraw my point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. No point of order has been stated.
Mr. FLEMING. In conclusion, let me say, when I talk about our being
addicted to spending, I'm talking about everyone in Congress and the
executive branch. I am not pointing fingers at any one group of people.
I will say that those who are unwilling to do something about it, by
supporting a balanced budget amendment, are in a clear state of denial.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 90 seconds.
It is not true, as we have heard on this floor repeatedly today, that
both parties are addicted to spending and that the deficit is equally
the fault of both parties.
It is the fault of George Bush. It is the fault of the Republican
Congress. Under President Clinton, a Democratic Congress voted for tax
increases and for spending cuts, and produced balanced budgets 4 years
in a row of such a significance that we were going to eliminate the
entire national debt by 2012. The Republicans came in and without
Democratic support voted for huge tax cuts, for two unfunded wars, and
for doubling the Pentagon's budget without increasing taxes to pay for
it.
That generated the huge deficit we have. The deficit was also
generated by the fact that, because of, arguably, Republican
deregulatory policies, we got into this huge depression caused by Wall
Street, and that increased the deficit. In January of 2009, before
President Obama took office, 1 month before, the CBO said that the next
year's deficit would be $1.2 trillion without this President's having
done a thing.
The point, as I said before, is that nondefense discretionary
spending--everything other than Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security,
veterans benefits, and interest on the debt--has not increased since
2001 when adjusted for inflation and population growth. So that is not
the source of our budget deficit. The source of our budget deficit is
that we cut the taxes on the rich and the corporations and that we
spent money on wars we didn't pay for.
{time} 1100
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman.
In response to the gentleman from New York, I just want to point out
a few facts: first of all, in the last 50 years, the budget has been
balanced six times. Democrats have controlled the House of
Representatives 37 of those years, and in only two of those years did
they balance the budget. Four times when Republicans were in the
majority, the budget was balanced: 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.
When those budgets were offered in this House, many Democrats voted
in a bipartisan fashion for at least one of those budgets. The
gentleman from New York voted against all four of the last balanced
budgets that occurred in the time that he has been in Congress.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. For fear of offending the training that my
mother gave me, I will again say that I stand here unaddicted and
recognize that there are those who are addicted to throwing the
vulnerable on the trash heap of life. Time and time again, in those
budgets that my good friend from New York (Mr. Nadler) voted against, I
assume that he refused to throw the vulnerable on the trash heap of
life.
We come again to a time when we want to abdicate our responsibility
under the Constitution. But, my friends, I want to remind you that time
and time again the Republicans came back to that tired old formula,
balanced budget amendment; and time and time again they were rejected.
This Constitution is sacred. It has nothing in it about the balanced
budget. Twenty-six amendments, and they have been rejected. Why?
Because they don't want to do the job that the people of the United
States have sent us to do. The job that says give and take on how we
fund this government.
Someone wants to talk about State governments. Yes, 49 States have a
balanced budget amendment; but it is on the operations budget, not on
the capital budget. The United States of America is responsible for
disasters when they hit New York, Missouri, and Texas. The United
States is responsible for lifting a military and providing for our sons
and daughters on the front lines of Iraq and Afghanistan, World Wars I
and II, Korea, and, of course, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and many
other places. Our States are not responsible for that.
Balanced budget amendment, maybe we want to be able to follow the
good work of our dear friends on the supercommittee. I have great
respect for them. The headline says: ``Supercommittee Well Short of a
Deal,'' because this is not the way we run a country.
And I refuse to be called ``addicted'' without the explanation that
my mother would want me to give. I am addicted to saving lives. I'm
addicted to making sure that Social Security is not violently cut by
the balanced budget amendment, Medicare being cut by
[[Page H7848]]
nearly $750 billion if this resolution were to pass, Social Security
almost $1.2 trillion, veterans benefits $85 billion through 2021.
So my argument is to be able to analyze what we're doing here, my
friends. The Constitution gives this House the power of the purse
strings; yet it will take a two-thirds vote in the middle of a crisis,
a war, a disaster, the need to invest in our young people--numbers that
Dr. Jeffrey Sachs said that we need for a legitimate apprentice program
that leads young people from college or training into a job.
Creating jobs invests in America. Would you understand that we have
the lowest number of white males going to college, the lowest number of
African Americans going to college, the lowest number of Latinos.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman.
We need investment in human resources. And all we're doing today is
denouncing and ridding ourselves of the obligatory responsibility that
we have when we take an oath to this Constitution every 2 years.
I don't want to be a spoilsport today. I believe we should tighten
our belt. There are many ways of doing so, looking at the financial
transactions on Wall Street or the Chicago commodities. Many ways to do
it. But this is a stranglehold on our neck. I refuse to cut seniors,
children, Social Security because you won't do your job. This is a bad
amendment. I will not vote for it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 2,
``Proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States.'' While I support bipartisan efforts to increase the
debt limit and to resolve our differences over budgetary revenue and
spending issues, I cannot support a bill that unduly constrains the
ability of Congress to deal effectively with America's economic,
fiscal, and job creation troubles.
In my lifetime, I have never seen such a concerted effort to ransom
the American economy in order to extort the American public. While I
support bipartisan efforts to increase the debt limit and to resolve
our differences over budgetary revenue and spending issues, I cannot
support a bill that unduly robs average Americans of their economic
security and ability to provide for their families while constraining
the ability of Congress to deal effectively with America's economic,
fiscal, and job creation troubles.
This bill would put our national security at risk. If our nation is
under attack or needs to respond to an imminent threat, the last person
I would consider contacting is an accountant. I would expect that this
body would act swiftly and this mandate takes away that ability.
We need to change the tone here in Congress. Federal Reserve Chairman
Ben Bernanke said it best when he stated recently before the House
Committee on Financial Services. ``We really don't want to just cut,
cut, cut.'' Chairman Bernanke further stated, ``You need to be a little
bit cautious about sharp cuts in the very near term because of the
potential impact on the recovery. That doesn't at all preclude--in
fact, I believe it's entirely consistent with--a longer-term program
that will bring our budget into a sustainable position.''
national security--veterans and military families
I am outraged to find that revisions to this legislation include a
provision that will hurt our veterans and military families and
seriously compromise our ability to combat terrorism. As a senior
Member of the Homeland Security Committee, I am deeply concerned about
any measure that undermines the men and women of the Armed Forces or
the safety and security of the American people.
The Department of Defense (DOD) has already agreed to cut its budget
by $450 billion over the next ten years. The Center for Strategic and
International Studies predicts that further budget reductions,
including those that would stem from a balanced budget amendment, will
cause substantive modification to our defense strategy, capabilities
and force structure.
Enacting a balanced budget requirement would severely limit the
ability of the Armed Forces to procure the equipment necessary to keep
our troops safe, and prepare them for potential combat. A balanced
budget amendment would dramatically constrain discretionary budgets, so
much so that procurement, research and development, and the acquisition
of new technologies would have to be zeroed out of the DOD budget.
These deep cuts to research and development and procurement would
threaten the safety of the men and women of the Armed Forces. For
example, the constraints caused by a balanced budget amendment would
seriously endanger the Marine Corps' V-22 Osprey program, as well as
the intended order of 340 F-35B Joint Strike Fighters. The effects of a
balanced budget amendment would hinder the Navy's planned expansion
from 287 to 320 ships.
This bill will deeply impact the Defense Industrial Base (DIB), a
group of companies and contractors that supply equipment and technology
to the Armed Forces. The budget reductions caused by a balanced budget
amendment would deeply impact modernization and procurement. In fact,
Army Secretary John McHugh recently said that to facilitate any further
budget cuts, ``you'd probably have to take some 50% out of
modernization.''
The DIB has resulted in the development of the most advanced military
force the world has ever seen. However, large cuts in procurement
funding would seriously compromise our ability to develop some
essential future capabilities. Moreover, the downsizing that a balanced
budget requires would leave a large number of highly skilled and
professional workers unemployed in an economy unlikely to absorb them
for quite some time.
Passing this legislation will not, as many of my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle believe, result in a more stable budget. An
amendment requiring a balanced budget will render discretionary
budgets, particularly the DOD and national security budgets, much less
predictable. The Departments of State, Defense and Homeland Security
will have to compete for their shares of the national security budget,
and furthermore, a likely response to a balanced budget amendment will
be an increased reliance on emergency, ad hoc appropriations.
A provision of H.J. Res. 2 requires legislation to spend money that
will take the budget out of balance due to a military conflict or
national security need. As it stands, this bill will require a Joint
Resolution from both houses of Congress with the specific dollar amount
being spent.
In order to spend more than has been appropriated, agencies tasked
with defense and national security will need approval from Congress.
This increased reliance on emergency appropriations will have
detrimental effects on the sound functioning of our defense and
national security institutions. The more these institutions are forced
to rely on emergency funding, the more unpredictable their budgets will
become.
This legislation would allow a military conflict or threat to
national security to take the budget out of balance. However, in order
to authorize additional funds for military engagement or threats to
national security that require action, Congress would need to pass
legislation citing a specific dollar amount.
As a senior Member of the Homeland Security Committee, I know that
the threats against the nation are constantly changing and ever
present. We cannot ask those responsible for protecting this nation to
ask Congress for a specific amount of money every time there is a
threat to our national security that requires action. Should we ever
experience another attack on American soil, we cannot expect out first
responders to wait for authorization before intervening.
Mr. Speaker, I am incredibly disheartened to see my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle champion this legislation, legislation that has
so many negative impacts on our veterans and military families. The
permanent budget cuts necessitated by a balance budget amendment would
require the DOD to drastically curtail the number of active duty
service members, retirement benefits, and healthcare benefits for
veterans and military families.
There are currently 22.6 million veterans living in the United
States, and all of them deserve the retirement and healthcare benefits
that were promised to them. In my home State of Texas we have nearly
1.7 million veterans, and 18th District is home to 32,000 of them. Of
the 200,000 veterans of military service who live and work in Houston;
more than 13,000 are veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan. We should
not compromise the benefits for one of these patriotic Americans with
this harmful legislation.
There has been a theme this Congress of focusing on cutting programs
that benefit the public good and for the most at need, while ignoring
the need to focus on job creation and economic recovery. Debate of this
balanced budget amendment is wasting a tremendous amount of time when
we should be focused on paying our nation's bills and resolving our
differences!
As I mentioned, a balanced budget is not something that should be
mandated in our Constitution, nor something that should be
automatically required every year. In particular, during economic
downturns, the government can stimulate growth by cutting taxes and
increasing spending. And in fact, the cost of many government benefit
programs is designed to automatically increase when the economy is
down--for example, costs for food stamps (SNAP) and Medicaid increase
when more people need to rely upon them.
[[Page H7849]]
These countercyclical measures lessen the impact of job losses and
economic hardship associated with economic downturns. The resulting
temporary increases in spending could cause deficits that would trigger
the balanced budget requirements at the worst possible moment.
A constitutional amendment requiring Congress to cut spending to
match revenue every year would both limit Congress's ability to respond
to changing fiscal conditions and would dramatically impede federal
responses to high unemployment as well as federal guarantees for food
and medical assistance.
H.J. Res. 2 would amend the Constitution to require Congress to
balance the budget each year. It would also impose new procedural
hurdles to raising the debt ceiling, and require the President to
submit a balanced budget each year.
The thresholds proposed in H.J. Res. 2 are completely unrealistic.
Even during Ronald Reagan's presidency--before the baby boomers had
reached retirement age, swelling the population eligible for Social
Security and Medicare, when health care costs were much lower--federal
spending averaged 22 percent of GDP. This would impose arbitrary limits
on government actions to respond to an economic slowdown or recession.
Cutting spending during a recession could make the recession worse by
increasing the number of unemployed, decreasing business investment,
and withholding services needed to jump-start the economy. As written,
this bill would render Social Security unconstitutional in its current
form. By Capping future spending below Reagan-era levels would force
devastating cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Head Start,
child care, Pell grants, and many other critical programs.
Only five years in the last fifty has the federal government posted
an annual budget surplus; all other years the government has been in
deficit. Even the House-passed Republican budget resolution, which
requires immediate and sustained drastic spending cuts, never reaches
balance in the ten-year window required by H.J. Res. 2--indeed, it is
not projected to be balanced for several decades, only reaching balance
by 2040.
Because this proposal makes it so much harder for Congress to
increase revenues than to cut spending, it in essence forces the
President to match those same restrictions in his budget. In other
words, H.J. Res. 2 is a political ploy designed to force the President
to submit a budget that reflects the Republican priorities of ending
the Medicare guarantee while cutting taxes for millionaires.
social security & medicare
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, H.J. Res.
2's balanced budget requirement could result in Medicare being cut by
nearly $750 billion, Social Security almost $1.2 trillion, and
veterans' benefits $85 billion, through 2021 assuming that the spending
cuts would be distributed evenly across the government. These cuts
would devastate millions of seniors, veterans, children and the
disabled.
These cuts would have a devastating effect on the millions of aged,
disabled, veterans, children, and others who depend on Social Security.
The BBA would have the foreseeable effect of plunging millions of
Social Security beneficiaries into poverty and making for a very bleak
future for most others. Over two-thirds of seniors and 70 percent of
people with disabilities depend on Social Security for half or more of
their income. Close to half--47 percent--of all single (i.e., widowed,
divorced, or never-married) women over age 65 rely on Social Security
for 90 percent or more of their income.
Seniors are spending more on their health care costs, and Americans
in general are making less. The face of poverty is a child's face. If a
private employer attempted to do what is being asked of us here today,
which would be to use their pension plans in a manner that H.J. Res. 2
would deal with Social Security that would be against the law.
Furthermore, the need to raise the debt ceiling has no correlation to
whether future budgets are balanced; increases in the debt ceiling
reflect past decisions on fiscal policy. And as demonstrated by this
year's current disagreement about whether and when to raise the debt
ceiling, Congress does not need to impose further barriers to its
consideration. Treasury has warned that failing to raise the debt
ceiling and the resulting government default, which would be
unprecedented, could have catastrophic impacts on the economy. Interest
rates would rise, increasing costs for the government and potentially
on American businesses and families.
Any cuts made to accommodate a mandated balanced budget would fall
most heavily on domestic discretionary programs; the immediate result
of a balanced budget amendment would be devastating cuts in education,
homeland security, public safety, health care and research,
transportation and other vital services.
The Founders purposely made the Constitutional amendment process a
long and arduous one. Having a Constitutional balanced budget amendment
is not a novel idea. Balanced budget amendments have made it to a floor
vote in the Senate five times, and in the House four times, according
to CRS. The Senate barely passed a version in 1982, but it failed to
gain the necessary two-thirds majority in the House. The House passed a
version in 1995, but it failed in the Senate.
Do my Republican colleagues really expect Congress to capriciously
pass an amendment altering our nation's founding document on such short
notice; an amendment that will fundamentally change our country without
reasonable time for debate; without the opportunity for a hearing or
questioning of witnesses; without any reports as to what impact it may
have?
By tying the fate of whether the United States pays its debt
obligations to the historically prolonged Constitutional amendment
process, the Republicans who support this bill have demonstrated, at
this critical juncture in American history, that they are profoundly
irresponsible when it comes to the integrity of our economy and utterly
bereft of sensible solutions for fixing it.
Potential Impact on Medicare
Medicare covers a population with diverse needs and circumstances.
Most people with Medicare live on modest incomes. While many
beneficiaries enjoy good health, 25% or more have serious health
problems and live with multiple chronic conditions, including cognitive
and functional impairments.
Today, 43% of all Medicare beneficiaries are between 65 and 74 years
old and 12% are 85 or older. Those who are 85 or older are the fastest-
growing age group among elderly Medicare beneficiaries. With the aging
and growth of the population, the number of Medicare beneficiaries more
than doubled between 1966 and 2000 and is projected to grow from 45
million today to 79 million in 2030.
POVERTY
We are constantly discussing cutting the budget, reducing our debt.
Any yet, there has not been a single strong job creating measure
purported by my Republican Colleagues. Instead time and again there is
legislation brought before this body to delay having a real debate on
job creation. The poorest among us are being asked to bear the brunt of
this legislation; cuts to Medicare, Cuts Social Security . . . who do
you think these programs serve. We would be asking the poor to pay more
for health insurance, to pay more for medical expenses, to pay more for
housing. I ask my colleagues a simple question?
Currently more Americans are in need of jobs than jobs are available.
Without focusing on creating jobs and advocating for job growth, what
will happen to those individuals who are unable to find work, are
seniors, are disabled, are children? What about veterans who find their
pensions cut? When all these cuts to essential and vital programs occur
in order to support this proposed constitutional mandate, what will
happen to these individuals; how will they pay housing, health, and
basic life necessities?
I am, as we all are, deeply troubled by the report issued by the U.S.
Census Bureau. 1 of every 6 Americans is living in poverty, totaling
46.2 million people, this highest number in 17 years. In a country with
so many resources, there is no excuse for this staggering level of
poverty.
Children represent a disproportionate amount of the United States
poor population. In 2008, there were 15.45 million impoverished
children in the nation, 20.7% of America's youth. The Kaiser Family
Foundation estimates that there are currently 5.6 million Texans living
in poverty, 2.2 million of them children, and that 17.4% of households
in the state struggle with food insecurity.
In my district, the Texas 18th, more than 190,000 people live below
the poverty line. We must not, we cannot, at a time when the Census
Bureau places the number of Americans living in poverty at the highest
rate in over 17 years, cut vital social services. Not in the wake of
the 2008 financial crisis and persistent unemployment, when so many
rely on federal benefits to survive, like the Supplemental Nutrition
Access Program (SNAP) that fed 3.9 million residents of Texas in April
2011, or the Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) Program that provides
nutritious food to more than 990,000 mothers and children in my home
state.
The Census Bureau also reported there are 49.9 million people in this
country without health insurance. This is an absolute injustice that
must be addressed. We can no longer ignore the fact that nearly 50
million Americans, many of them children, have no health insurance.
Texas has the largest uninsured population in the country; 24.6% of
Texans do not have health care coverage. This includes 1.3 million
children in the state of Texas alone who do not have health insurance,
or access to the healthcare they need.
It is unconscionable that, despite egregiously high poverty rates,
Republicans seek
[[Page H7850]]
to reduce spending by cutting social programs that provide food and
healthcare instead of raising taxes on the wealthiest in the nation, or
closing corporate tax loopholes.
Balanced budget amendments have made it to a floor vote in the Senate
five times, and in the House four times, according to CRS. The Senate
passed a version in 1982, but it failed to gain the necessary two-
thirds majority in the House. The House passed a version in 1995, but
it failed in the Senate.
National Education Association,
Washington, DC, November 15, 2011.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 3.2 million members
of the National Education Association, we strongly urge you
to VOTE NO on the constitutional balanced budget amendment
scheduled for floor debate this week. While we understand the
need to get our nation's fiscal house in order, such
proposals are not the right mechanism. The effect would be
devastating for public education and retirement security,
undermining economic recovery and jeopardizing our future
strength as a nation. Votes associated with this issue may be
included in the NEA Legislative Report Card for the 112th
Congress.
Overall, a balanced budget amendment could result in the
largest cuts in federal spending in modern history. In fact,
it simply will not be possible to achieve the spending levels
required under any balanced budget amendment without massive
cuts in education, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and
other programs that meet crucial national needs.
Educators understand that Congress must work to ensure
America's long-term economic prosperity and that we must
address the nation's serious fiscal challenges. However,
cutting education funding and slashing programs that serve
children, seniors, and working families is not the answer.
Claims that families and states balance their budgets are
erroneous. Most families have mortgages and car loans, and
take on other debt to provide for their children's futures.
In addition, while many states must balance their operating
budgets, they take on debt for capital costs and job-creating
projects such as building roads, bridges, and schools.
NEA members see first-hand every day the struggles of many
of their students and their families. A balanced budget
amendment will make their struggles even harder--essentially
abandoning them while continuing to cater to the wealthiest
in our nation.
Mandating a balanced budget would constitute exceedingly
unwise economic policy. It would risk tipping a faltering
economy into recession and slowing economic recovery. It
would determine spending levels for decades and tie future
Congress' hands. And, it would render impossible the sorts of
investments necessary to continue economic recovery and grow
the skilled workforce necessary for future economic strength.
A balanced budget amendment would decimate public education
and other programs that ensure a competitive workforce and
future economic vitality. We urge you to vote NO.
Sincerely,
Kim Anderson,
Director, Center for Advocacy.
Mary Kusler,
Manager, Federal Advocacy.
____
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, November 15, 2011.
(House Rules)
Statement of Administration Policy
H.J. Res. 2--Proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment
(Rep. Goodlatte, R-VA, and 242 cosponsors)
The Administration strongly opposes H. J. Res. 2. We do not
need to amend the Constitution for only the 28th time in our
nation's history to do the job of restoring fiscal
discipline. Instead, it requires us--as members of both
parties have done in the past--to move beyond politics as
usual and find bipartisan common ground to restore us to a
sustainable fiscal path.
H. J. Res. 2 would impose serious risks for our economy in
several ways. It risks accelerating economic downturns by
requiring the government to raise taxes and cut spending in
the face of a contraction, which would accelerate job losses.
The President proposed a balanced approach to restore fiscal
sustainability and in a way that doesn't slow the Federal
Government's ability to initiate actions that help stabilize
the economy and keep future recessions from becoming worse.
By contrast, under H. J. Res. 2, a minority in a single house
of Congress could block the will of the majority and the
Executive to waive its provisions when our country faces a
downturn. If H. J. Res. 2 had been in effect in recent years,
such a minority in one house would have been able to prevent
efforts to override the requirement for tax increases or
spending cuts, risking an even deeper contraction and pushing
the economy into a second Great Depression. Further, H. J.
Res. 2 ducks responsibility and does not take the Nation's
fiscal challenges head-on. Rather, it could inevitably result
in handing the hard decisions that our elected
representatives in the Congress should be making to the
Federal Courts.
In addition, absent a willingness to raise substantially
higher revenues than in the House Budget Resolution by
closing tax loopholes or asking the most fortunate to pay
more, H. J. Res. 2 would undercut the Federal Government's
ability to meet its core commitments to seniors, middle class
families and the most vulnerable, while reducing our ability
to invest in our future. This could result in severe cuts to
programs like Medicare and Social Security that are growing
due to the retirement of the baby boomers, putting at risk
the retirement security of millions of Americans, and it
could result in significant cuts to education, research and
development, and other programs critical to growing our
economy and winning the future.
H. J. Res. 2 is not a solution to the Nation's deficits.
The Administration is committed to working with the Congress
on a bipartisan basis to achieve real deficit reduction. The
President laid out a set of recommendations to the Joint
Select Committee to achieve over $4 trillion in balanced
deficit reduction, including the deficit reduction already
locked in by the Budget Control Act. The President urges the
Committee to meet or exceed its mandate for deficit
reduction.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Hurt), a member of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. HURT. I rise today in support of a balanced budget amendment to
the United States Constitution, offered by my friend from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte). I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia for his
leadership on this important legislation; and as a cosponsor of this
measure, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this balanced budget
amendment.
Our Nation's staggering debt and reckless borrowing illustrate the
urgent need to implement real institutional change in Washington. For
far too long, Members of both parties have routinely chosen the
politically expedient course over what is in the best interest of our
Nation, casting aside any spending pledges or statutory caps and
pushing our Nation further along on a careless spending binge with
devastating consequences for the people of Virginia's Fifth
Congressional District and all across our country.
We, as a Nation, now face a $15 trillion debt that nearly equals the
size of our entire United States economy. We are running a $1.3
trillion deficit, and we are borrowing over 40 cents on every dollar we
spend. This dire debt crisis not only threatens our economic recovery
by stifling job creation, but it also threatens the very future of our
country.
Given the seriousness of our current fiscal situation, Congress'
abysmal record of fiscal management, it is critical that we put
institutional spending reforms in place that will force the government
to live within its means, just as families, businesses, and State
governments do in Virginia and across the country. By passing a
balanced budget amendment, Congress will be required to spend no more
than it takes in, reining in out-of-control spending once and for all.
As I travel across Virginia's Fifth District, I continually hear from
my constituents--Republicans, Democrats, and independents--who say that
if we are serious about turning our economy around, and if we are
serious about preserving this country for our children and
grandchildren, we must put an immediate end to Washington's out-of-
control spending.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bipartisan measure so
we may implement the structural framework necessary to put our Nation
back on a path of fiscal sustainability for the sake of future
Americans.
I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, we've heard a lot about the
Members on the other side of the aisle trying to take credit for the
fiscal responsibility in the 1990s. I think we need to review what
actually happened during those years.
I came into Congress in 1993, and the first tough votes we had to
cast were on the budget. We passed a tough budget. It passed by one
vote in the House and a tie-breaking vote by the Vice President in the
Senate. Not a single Republican voted for that tough budget. In fact,
it's that budget that we are
[[Page H7851]]
talking about that laid the groundwork for the fiscal responsibility
for the 1990s.
And on that vote, when the last vote was cast by Marjorie Margolies-
Mezvinsky from Pennsylvania, the Members on the other side of the aisle
did not congratulate her for casting the tie-breaking vote to pass the
bill. They started chanting ``Bye-bye, Marjorie,'' and she was defeated
with that vote in her next election. In fact, she was defeated along
with almost 50 Members of the Democratic Party who voted for that
budget.
In 1995, when the Republicans came in with a majority, they tried to
dismantle the budget. And in fact, President Clinton vetoed all of
those budgets that they had offered; and we shut down the government,
rather than dismantle that plan. Finally, when the deficit had gone
from $290 billion down to less than $25 billion, then the Members on
the other side of the aisle joined on as we crossed the finish line.
Well, that's like showing up for the ribbon-cutting after you have
voted against the stimulus bill. All of the tough votes had been cast.
All of the hard work, all of the political damage had been suffered.
And now all of a sudden, they want to come in and take credit. What
they can take credit for is President Clinton vetoing their bills.
If you want to know what would have happened if they had been signed,
we found out in 2001. Because as Chairman Greenspan had to answer
questions as to what's going to happen if we pay off the national debt
too quickly--we were on chart to paying off the national debt after the
first tax cut--that was the last time you heard anybody talking about
paying off the national debt.
Two tax cuts not paid for, two wars not paid for, prescription drugs
not paid for, and now we find ourselves in the ditch.
Balancing the budget is arithmetic. You've got to pass some unpopular
votes. You've got to raise taxes and/or cut spending, and you're going
to make some political enemies doing either one.
{time} 1110
This legislation doesn't help us make those tough choices. In fact,
it makes it even more difficult. People say we need a constitutional
amendment to force us to balance the budget. This legislation doesn't
force us to do anything. It makes it more difficult. Read the bill. If
we want to pass something--we had a hearing on it a couple of days ago
when the former Governor of Pennsylvania said that the balanced budget
provision in the Pennsylvania State Constitution was a good idea, and I
asked him what provision in this legislation can be found in the
Pennsylvania Constitution; none of them. None of the provisions of H.J.
Res. 2 can be found in any State constitution other than the title. And
so here we are talking about the title but not the provisions of the
bill.
The major provision in this bill is a three-fifths requirement to
pass a budget that's not in balance; which, incidentally, would cover
every budget that we considered this year.
Now, I think it is fair to say that the most fiscally conservative
budget on the table was the Republican Study Group that got a few
votes, not anywhere close to a majority. And if that's your goal, why
would raising the threshold from a simple majority that you couldn't
even get up to three-fifths make it more likely that you could pass
that tough kind of budget?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. NADLER. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Once you have ascertained that even the
Republican Study Group budget would require three-fifths, any budget,
responsible or irresponsible, could pass with the same three-fifths. In
fact, you could cut taxes with three-fifths. You could raise spending.
You could have a totally irresponsible budget with three-fifths. So why
is it more likely that you're going to be fiscally responsible with
three-fifths when you've never been able to get even a simple majority,
when three-fifths--last December we passed an $800 billion tax cut,
putting us $800 billion further in the ditch. We got three-fifths for
that, but try to get three-fifths for a meaningful deficit reduction
plan.
This legislation will make it more difficult to balance the budget.
All of this debate has been about the title, how nice it would be to
balance the budget. But we ought to read the bill and point out that
the provisions of this bill will actually make it more difficult,
probably impossible, to ever balance the budget, and we will end up
trying to get three-fifths vote, ending up with worse budgets than we
would have under the present system.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman.
I need to comment on the revisionist history that we are hearing.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that tough votes are made when
Congresses make the decision to balance the budget. That decision
wasn't made in 1993 when Democrats voted to raise taxes; it was made
when we sent a budget to the President that he vetoed. The government
shut down, and after that shutdown, then and only then did President
Clinton get in favor of welfare reform and other things that led to a
slowing of the rate of growth in government spending.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. GOODLATTE. He calls a ribbon cutting to show up and vote for
budgets that are actually balanced. The gentleman from Virginia, my
good friend, voted against all four--all four--of the budgets that were
balanced in the 1990s and leading up to 2001.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and
colleague from Texas (Mr. Canseco), a member of the Financial Services
Committee.
Mr. CANSECO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today we are taking an important step towards changing the way
Washington does business; and it couldn't come at a more opportune time
as our national debt crossed the $15 trillion threshold this week,
which means that now on average every American household's share of the
national debt is $127,899. Our Nation is in the midst of a spending-
driven debt crisis. We have run three successive $1 trillion-plus
deficits. We are borrowing approximately 40 cents out of every dollar
the Federal Government spends; and the CBO estimates that, by the end
of the decade, we'll be spending almost $1 trillion just to pay the
interest on our debt.
If we do nothing, the problem will get worse. We will continue
spending, borrowing, and accumulating more debt, until one day our
children and grandchildren and their futures are drowned in a sea of
red ink. Our inability to get our fiscal house in order will leave them
with a downsized American Dream.
As a father of three children, this is something that I refuse to do.
I am the son of Mexican immigrants who came to this Nation to provide
their children with a better life and to live in a land where my
opportunity would be limited only by how hard I worked and how big I
could dream.
I want to ensure that America remains a land of unlimited opportunity
for our children and grandchildren. I don't want the legacy of this
generation of Americans to be that we're the first generation of
Americans to pass on a smaller American Dream to future generations.
For too long, our Nation has spent far beyond its means. We have run
up a national credit card, borrowing from our children's and
grandchildren's future to pay for spending today. We need to cut up the
national credit card and make sure the dire situation we have gotten
ourselves into never happens again, and a balanced budget amendment
will do just that.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains, please?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 36\3/4\
minutes, and the gentleman from Texas has 1 hour and 4\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. NADLER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) control the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
[[Page H7852]]
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield
1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), a member
of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me this
time to speak about this important issue. I really want to thank him
for bringing this to the floor because this is one of those rare
bipartisan pieces of legislation that Congress brings forward that is
so critical to the future of our country. You know, a balanced budget
amendment is an idea that is long overdue.
If you look at where we are right now, some of the biggest challenges
facing our country come from the fact that Washington continues to
spend money it doesn't have. This Nation just passed the $15 trillion
threshold in debt. Just in the last 2\1/2\ years since President Obama
has been in office, another $5 trillion, mountains of debt that have
been added to the backs of our children and grandchildren. It is
irresponsible to keep dumping this debt onto future generations. It
hurts America's ability to grow, it holds America's promise back, and
it has got to stop.
If you look at what is important about this debate, a balanced budget
amendment will finally bring permanent accountability and force
Washington to start living within its means, to tell Washington you
can't keep spending money you don't have. And yet you listen to this
debate and there are Republicans and Democrats supporting this concept
that's long overdue to require a balanced Federal budget; but, of
course, there are opponents as well. If you listen to what some of the
opponents have been saying, they call it reckless. Forty-nine States do
this, families all across the country balance their budget, and they
call it reckless to live within our means.
What I would finally say in conclusion is that we have got to put
these reins on Washington spending. We've got to give this promise to
the next generation. Stop playing politics. Let's pass this amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the 49 States borrow
for capital budgets. They have balanced budget amendments for operating
budgets. This makes no distinction and would not let us borrow ever.
I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to point out
that this does allow you to borrow; you just have to have a
supermajority and a special reason to do so. And I point out that if
the States had anything like the proportionate debt that is constituted
by this government today of $15 trillion, they wouldn't be borrowing
much money either.
At this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), a member of the Financial Services
Committee.
{time} 1120
Mr. DUFFY. This was not the version that I supported. I wanted a
version that had spending caps linked to GDP. But as this week we
passed the $15 trillion debt mark, I thought it was important that this
House come together and figure out a way to control the spending. If
you look at our recent history, this House conference on the GOP side
passed a budget this year that brought our country to balance. And all
the Democrats across the aisle--not all--most of them voted no. They
were offered a counterproposal that could bring our budget to balance.
The Democrats in the Senate haven't proposed a budget in 900 days. We
need to be serious about this debt. And, today, as we are $15 trillion
in debt and we have historic interest rate lows, let's look out 10
years, when the debt is $25 trillion and we go from historic low
interest rates to historic norms. If we can't balance the budget today,
is it going to be easier 10 years from now when it's $25 trillion and
we have more people on Social Security and Medicare?
My friends across the aisle like to pull up Social Security,
Medicare, and the needy. And do you know what? I care about those
constituents in my district as well. But we have to be honest about
what we're doing. We are borrowing this money from China. We have given
them an economic nuclear bomb. We are bankrupting this country and
jeopardizing the freedom of our next generation.
Let's make sure we pass this balanced budget amendment, and let's
rely on the American people to fund the obligations that this House
makes. With that, I encourage all of my colleagues to support the
amendment.
Mr. NADLER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is now my honor to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts), chairman of the
Government Organization Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government
Reform Committee.
Mr. PLATTS. I thank the chairman for yielding, and I especially thank
him for his great leadership on this very important issue.
I rise in favor of this legislation. The Federal Government is
currently borrowing close to 40 cents of every dollar that it spends.
Our $15 trillion national debt has grown to be as large as our entire
economy. One of the most important actions that Congress can take to
restore fiscal sanity to Washington for generations to come is to adopt
a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution.
I've cosponsored a version of a balanced budget amendment every
session since first being elected to Congress, including the measure
that we are debating here today. This proposal would impose a similar
requirement for annually adopting a balanced budget, as currently
exists in 49 States, recognizing a commonsense exception for defense
under limited circumstances.
The idea of a balanced budget amendment is not new. One of our
Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, was a strong proponent of this
idea. More recently, in 1995, as has been discussed, following passage
by the House of Representatives, the United States Senate came within
one vote of sending this version of the balanced budget amendment to
the States for ratification. Since then, our total national debt has
nearly tripled.
A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution will help to restore
fiscal integrity to Washington, boost confidence in the American
economy, and stop Washington's practice of saddling future generations
with insurmountable levels of debt. The adoption of a balanced budget
amendment has the strong support of the overwhelming majority of
Americans.
Our constituents get it. We can't continue to spend money that we
don't have. It's time for Washington to get it and to heed the will of
the American people. We should pass this legislation and thereby allow
our State legislatures the opportunity to ratify this commonsense
addition to the United States Constitution.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
I haven't heard this said since I've been sitting on the floor
listening to the debate, but if anybody has said it, I want to express
my agreement with them. We cannot continue to spend more year after
year after year than we receive. That is unsustainable, and with that,
I cannot argue. However, I disagree that we need a balanced budget
amendment to make that point.
I have no balanced budget amendment to operate my household. Some
years I have borrowed money and gone in debt, and some years I have
accumulated a surplus and paid down that debt. I'm sure that's the way
every American citizen operates their life, trying to make responsible
decisions and not hiding behind some subterfuge like a balanced budget
amendment.
Being responsible, I went into debt to go to college. It was a
wonderful investment because I wouldn't be here today if I had not done
that. And I paid that debt back in some years where I generated
surpluses in my household--as a result of going to college. I went into
debt to buy a house. It's been a wonderful investment. The house has a
lot more value now than what I paid for it. It is part of my assets.
And one of these days, I'm going to pay that debt off. But I'm still,
if you count that, operating in a deficit situation. There are some
years that I'm in surplus. There are some years that I'm in deficit.
The one thing I do know, whether I'm in deficit or surplus, I count the
income, and I count the expenditures.
[[Page H7853]]
Balancing a budget is not just about how much you spend; it is also
about how much you take in. And the government's only source of taking
in money is tax revenues. So for somebody to come in here and lecture
me about a balanced budget amendment, when they jumped up from
discussions and said, I'm not going to talk about revenues in an effort
to balance the budget, I'm just going to have you talk about
expenditures--that is unacceptable to me.
Let's grow up in this institution. Act responsibly and make tough
decisions, and we can get out of this deficit situation, and we can pay
off the debt. We have proved it. We proved it while I was here in this
body. We got to the point that Chairman Greenspan at that time was
saying, hey, I'm worried that you're going to pay off the national debt
too fast and it's going to be deflationary. Republicans were not in
control then. We didn't have a balanced budget amendment then.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. WATT. We didn't have a balanced budget amendment then. We acted
responsibly, and not with a single vote from the people who are here
lecturing us today and saying they need a balanced budget to stand
behind. That's like standing behind my mother's skirt.
Grow up. Make responsible decisions. Quit going into wars that we
can't afford to pay for and not paying for them. Make some responsible
decisions, and you won't need this skirt to stand behind. We don't need
this. It's irrational. The American people know it's irrational because
they know that balancing a budget is a function of income and
expenditures.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the
gentleman.
If the gentleman's complaint is that there have been decisions made
during Republican Congresses that he doesn't agree with that spent too
much money, that didn't yield to balancing budgets, the gentleman is
correct.
But the gentleman neglects to point out that there have been many,
many Democratic Congresses in the last 50 years, 37 of them, of which
only two of them resulted in a balanced budget. That is not a good
record either. In fact, during the 1990s, when we were fortunate enough
to receive four balanced budgets, those balanced budgets were under a
Republican Congress and a Democratic President.
{time} 1130
In point of fact, it was only after there was a confrontation about
the level of spending and a government shutdown that the necessary
reforms were made to slow the rate of government spending so we could
achieve those balanced budgets.
The gentleman from North Carolina takes credit for his vote in 1993,
which I did not agree with. I'm going to take credit for my four votes
that were balanced budgets in 1998 through 2001, which he voted
against. So we need bipartisan support for a rule in our Constitution
that requires that the budget be balanced every year, except in times
of national emergency when we should have bipartisan support to not
balance.
At this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Stearns), chairman of the Energy and Commerce
Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee.
Mr. STEARNS. I thank my distinguished colleague.
You know, I say to my colleagues on the Democrat side, we can sit
here and blame Bush; we can sit here, on our side we could blame
President Obama; and we can have this high rhetoric talking about this
issue but now is the time to get serious. But we are in a very
precarious situation. This is all different with a debt to GDP ratio at
100 percent.
When you look at the statistics and you say, well, look, what's going
to happen in this country in 10 years, in 10 years 95 percent of all
Federal tax revenues will be consumed by payments of interest on the
national debt and mandatory programs like Social Security. I think you
would agree with that. Medicare and Medicaid are also there. This will
leave just about 5 percent of our annual tax revenue available for
funding national defense and other essential functions of the
government. So this is an attempt here today, a very sober attempt, to
control federal budgets and do this through a balanced budget
amendment.
Now, you make a valid argument about the difference of these 49
States having an operational balanced budget, which is they don't have
a capital outlay balanced budget. I understand that argument. But also,
with this constitutional amendment, we are projecting an attempt to
have a rainy-day fund, where we set aside money for these emergencies
we all worry about. So you cannot hang your whole argument on the
difference between the state operational budgets and a state capital
budget and a federal budget as a reason for not voting for this because
we are at such dire extreme situations.
And talking about Founding Fathers, they understood the perils
associated with debt. In fact, Thomas Jefferson said, ``The principle
of spending money to be paid by future generations, under the name of
funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.''
We need to come together and understand that this is not business as
usual like when we voted for the constitutional amendment some 16 years
ago. This is a precarious moment in history. We do not think we can go
forward without controlling our spending, and this is a legitimate
attempt to do so. I think the high rhetoric on both sides of blaming
different Presidents and talking about the past is gone. We're talking
about the future.
I urge you to support this resolution.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, either we will have the discipline to do
what we have to or this amendment simply puts those decisions in the
hands of a Federal judge, which we don't want to see, I don't think.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), a member of the Agriculture
Committee.
Mr. HULTGREN. The time is now.
This week we watched as our Nation's debt reached an unprecedented
level--$15 trillion. This debt crisis was caused by past
administrations and past Congresses who refused to say no more
spending.
Washington spends too much and is under water. Because of that, our
national security and sovereignty and the standard of living for our
children and grandchildren are in jeopardy.
Mr. Speaker, the time is now for this Congress to pass immediate,
bold and permanent spending reforms that will hold all future
Congresses accountable for their spending. And now we have the
opportunity to do just that by passing a balanced budget amendment to
our Constitution. Let's forever change the way that Washington spends
money and bring accountability back to Congress by passing the balanced
budget amendment to the Constitution. We've come close before, but
there's no more excuses. The time is now.
Mr. NADLER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey), a member of the Financial
Services Committee and, as a realtor, may want to comment on some of
the remarks made here today regarding the ability of people to borrow
money under certain circumstances.
Mr. POSEY. Well, first I will comment on the value of buying homes on
credit. I think it's a pretty good idea; but when you go to get
qualified for a home, the rule of thumb is that you should buy a home
roughly not more than 2.5 times your annual income. If you compare that
to our known debt of $15 trillion, our revenues of about $2.2 trillion,
you would see that if our debt was a home loan, it would be 14 times
our annual income. No lender would loan you money under those
circumstances; they would say you are bankrupt far beyond any
possibility of recovering. And that doesn't include the $60 trillion
unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. So I
don't know if that was really a very good analogy.
Now, to my point, there is an old political axiom that says that
anytime you promise to steal from Peter to pay Paul, one thing usually
happens: Paul votes for you. Total revenues, as I just said in answer
to the chairman's question, are about $2.2 trillion; total expenses the
Federal Government spends, $3.6 trillion.
[[Page H7854]]
Where does the money come from? Rather than balancing our budget like
every hardworking American family, 49 other States, and virtually every
local government in the country, Congress instead currently puts about
40 percent of every what has been described as ``vote-buying'' dollar
it spends on our kids' and our grandkids' credit cards, to the point
where each American family's share of the national debt is about
$125,000--actually, in excess of $125,000. It will be hard to stop the
spending. It will be like taking drugs away from an addict.
Since Congress--Republicans and Democrats--has not shown the
political will to be accountable, I believe a voter-mandated, balanced
budget constitutional amendment is the only hope this country has to
preserve the American experiment at representative self-government. And
I urge Members of this body to begin thinking about the next generation
instead of the next election.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today this House will vote on
the momentous issue of amending the Constitution of the United States.
All of us should understand that this is no symbolic vote. This is not
a routine legislative act. We are asked to consider amending the most
sacred document of a free people with a provision not contemplated by
the Founders.
The argument is propounded that the times demand it, there is no
other choice, and that public opinion favors it. But as legislators, we
must hold ourselves to a higher threshold to amend the Constitution. Is
the proposal essential? Did the Founders fail to consider the issue
that now must be addressed in and only in a constitutional framework?
Is there no legislative remedy? What are the negative and foreseeable
consequences of such a constitutional mandate? And importantly, we must
remember that, but for one, all constitutional amendments are written
in indelible ink.
Desirous of a balanced budget, like everybody else, I must
regrettably oppose the proposed amendment before us. It does not pass
the higher constitutional threshold we must insist upon. We balanced
the budget just a decade ago for 4 consecutive years without such an
amendment. It was a matter of political will, fiscal discipline, and
successful economic growth.
There is no evidence that says potential cannot be resurrected. There
is ample evidence, however, that this institution lacks the will and
courage to undertake the policy changes necessary.
Political failure can and must be addressed here and, failing that,
at the ballot box. The corrective is forging a political consensus, not
amending the Constitution. In fact, to leap to the latter as an
expedient is to admit the collapse of our democratic institutions and
to abandon all faith in our collective ability to respond. I refuse to
recant my faith in our ability to make the difficult choices necessary
to achieve the desired goals of debt reduction and balanced fiscal
performance.
The proposed amendment also fails another test: do no harm.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Had this amendment been in place during the
income contraction we just experienced, we would have abandoned the
economic field to the Darwinian forces at work and guaranteed that the
Great Recession became the second Great Depression, condemning our
citizens to their own fate, one which would have been characterized for
a generation with want, double-digit unemployment, and endemic poverty.
{time} 1140
Why would any Member of this body consciously choose such a course,
especially when there are alternatives, although painful ones? Perhaps
it's easier to pander to the clamor of the moment or to seek out the
seductively easy answers. Perhaps we seek to mask an ideological agenda
to starve the government investments cloaked in the more respectable
argument of a constitutional amendment made necessary to balance the
budget.
For me, the Founders' silence on this matter in the Constitution was
intentional. They understood and expected that Congress would meet its
duties and do its job.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. DesJarlais), a member of the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Mr. DesJARLAIS. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that our Nation's on an unsustainable
spending path that will lead this country to bankruptcy. Our national
debt is now a staggering $15 trillion and rising daily.
In the past 50 years, the budget has been balanced just six times, a
losing record that has seen our deficit explode from $300 billion to
$15 trillion.
Congress has tried spending caps. Time and time again, one Congress
sets them, just to see the next Congress undo them. That's why we must
have this amendment. A balanced budget amendment will finally force the
Federal Government to live within its means, not just this Congress,
but for generations to come.
Politicians love their polls, and a recent poll shows that 75 percent
of Americans favor a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. If
we, as Congressmen, are truly representing the people who sent us here,
this is the day that we set partisan differences aside and listen to
the people. Three-fourths of Americans want this. We only need two-
thirds of our Members to make this happen.
It is no secret to anyone here that Congress suffers from a 90
percent disapproval rating, and I believe it's because the American
people are sick and tired of partisan politics and that their voices
fall on deaf ears. Today we have a chance to show the American people
that we are listening, that we do care about them, and that we do hear
their voices.
Republicans should embrace this bill; Democrats should embrace this
bill; the President of the United States should embrace this bill
because, clearly, the American people embrace this bill. It is a rare
opportunity where we all win.
Let us return to our districts with our heads held high, tell our
constituents that their voices were heard, that we listened. Let's hug
our children and grandchildren and tell them today we made history and
we have taken a giant step toward securing their future. For the sake
of this great Nation, do the right thing. Pass this resolution.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have, please?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 29 minutes.
The gentleman from Virginia has 51 minutes.
Mr. NADLER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the chairman of
the Agriculture, Energy and Trade Subcommittee of the Small Business
Committee.
Mr. TIPTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, generations of Americans from now will stand in judgment
of the choices that we make today.
In my district, as I've traveled and visited with people, from the
farm and ranch community to small business owners to families around
their kitchen tables, the message is clear: They're frustrated that
Washington does not live under the same rules that they do.
Those families gather each night to be able to balance their budget.
Small businesses do it every day. Forty-nine of our 50 States balance
their budget. And the question is always raised: Why doesn't Washington
live under the same rules?
We look at our European counterparts right now, Greece, Italy,
struggling under their crushing debt. Will we follow that same path or
will we pick a better way?
Mr. Speaker, the time has come, the day has arrived, and the hour is
now. We have an opportunity to stand up for the American people. The
one thing that we can all understand as we debate the different sides
of this issue is one important point that is not debatable--$15
trillion in debt.
[[Page H7855]]
Our children, our grandchildren, those of us today, we need to be
standing up for responsibility. This Congress, at this time, has that
opportunity. The choice we make here today does not end the debate. We
return to our States, to the people who sent us here to make that final
choice. I think the answer will be clear.
The time has come for this Congress to embrace a balanced budget, to
stand up and do what every American does every day. We need to pass
this bill, and we need to pass it now.
Mr. NADLER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita), a member of the Budget
Committee and a leader on this issue.
Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor of this bipartisan bill in
full support of it.
Rarely do we have a chance in this body to make fundamental
difference. It's so easy, as I've learned in a short 10 months, for
Members of this body to say ``no'' instead of taking a personal
responsibility to make the tough decisions that need to be made. This
morning we have that chance. I don't think this chance will come closer
in our orbit for a very long time.
If we can pass language out of this House this morning, the Senate
has to vote on it. The Senate Majority Leader cannot table it. And
because it's a constitutional amendment, it has nothing to do with the
President. He can't veto it. He doesn't have to sign it. It goes right
to the States.
And why is that so important? Why is that so different? Because
finally the people of this country, of the State of Indiana, of my
beloved Fourth District, will have a chance to tell us, by ratification
of this amendment, whether or not they want to live within their means
instead of passing their bills from the Federal Government--spending
that's occurring here, $8 billion to $12 billion a day more in debt--
whether they're done passing it on to their kids and grandkids. And I
believe, speaking specifically to those of us who represent senior
citizens, that most of them have grandchildren, and they don't want
their bills passed on to them.
Those that say no today, those that say no today are really saying no
because they don't want to lose control. They don't want the people to
decide. They'd rather have that in their hands. They'd rather keep
kicking that heavier and heavier can down the road so that citizens
like this, Teddy and Ryan and their kids, can pay the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from
Indiana.
Mr. ROKITA. That's what this is about.
Ladies and gentlemen of this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, there are two
constituencies out there. Mr. Posey from Florida said it well. We're
robbing Peter to pay Paul. And why that works around here is because
Paul can vote for us.
I ask every Member here today: Who stands for the constituency that
can't directly vote for the next election? Who stands for their
constituency that doesn't exist yet but will?
Because of the decisions that are made here on this floor in this
Federal Government in this town where too often up is down and down is
up and black is white and white is black, we don't represent the
constituency. We don't prioritize the right constituency at the right
time. This is a chance to do this. This is a chance to not let us have
that out anymore, to make us have the tax fight, to make us have the
cut spending fight, but not allow the option of kicking the can down
the road to make people who aren't here today pay for it.
{time} 1150
Mr. NADLER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), who is not only the vice
chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee but has been a great partner
in this effort to pass a balanced budget amendment to the United States
Constitution.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 2, a balanced budget amendment
to the U.S. Constitution.
This is a challenging time in the life of our Nation. Our economy is
struggling under the failed economic policies of the recent past and
under a mountain range of debt. We have an unchecked, spendthrift
Federal Government that's placing a burden of insurmountable debt on
our children and grandchildren. Washington, D.C. isn't just broke, it's
broken. And the time has come to change the way we spend the people's
money. And to do that in our national charter, the time has come for a
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
I want to take a moment to commend just a few people who brought us
to this day. I want to commend Speaker Boehner and the Republican
leadership for ensuring that for the first time in 15 years we would
have an up-or-down vote in the House and in the Senate on a balanced
budget amendment to the Constitution.
But I also want to commend the gentleman from Virginia, Congressman
Goodlatte, who throughout those last 15 years has been, as we say back
home, like a dog with a bone on a balanced budget amendment to the
Constitution. His tenacity, his commitment to this reform, not
singularly but predominantly, has brought us to this day, and I commend
him from my heart.
Our Nation is sinking in a sea of debt. Just this week, we passed $15
trillion in national debt. And the American people are tired of the
same old arguments. They want solutions, not slogans. They want
reforms, not rhetoric. The balanced budget amendment to the
Constitution is an authentic, long-term solution to runaway Federal
spending, deficits, and debt by both political parties.
The measure we bring to the floor today is a bipartisan measure. It
is nearly identical to the version that last passed the House with
bipartisan support. It requires simply that the Federal Government not
spend more than it takes; it requires a three-fifths vote to raise the
Nation's debt ceiling; and it requires any increase in taxes by a true
majority rollcall vote.
Now, while I support this historic version, this bipartisan version
of the balanced budget amendment, I do regret it doesn't go further. I
would that we had brought a version of the balanced budget amendment to
the floor that included a cap on Federal spending, strict limits on the
judiciary, and a higher hurdle for Congress to raise taxes on the
American people.
But while this version of the balanced budget amendment doesn't have
everything I want, I believe it will move the debate forward.
Adding to our national charter the expectation of the American people
that this national government live within its means, that the income
meet the outgo, would be a historic addition.
So I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan version of the
balanced budget amendment. Let's send it to the Senate by the requisite
supermajority, and then let's let the States decide whether the time
has come to put in our national charter the requirement that this
government live within the means of the American people.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New
York (Ms. Velazquez).
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.
I rise in strong opposition to this misguided amendment which will
visit harm on working families, prevent government from responding to
crises, and cripple the U.S. economy.
Under this amendment, it will become difficult to raise the debt
ceiling, putting our country at greater risk of default. It is alarming
that so shortly after averting the most recent danger of a default, the
authors of this amendment will endanger our Nation's credit so
directly.
Equally disturbing, should a war, domestic crisis, or natural
disaster strike, our government could find its hands tied, incapable of
responding swiftly. When crises occur, Congress must have the
flexibility to respond.
[[Page H7856]]
It is shortsighted and dangerous to cede this authority from the
legislative branch. Not only will this amendment effectively slow our
response to future catastrophe, but it will also undercut our current
economic recovery, eliminating 50 million jobs.
The fact is, if you like 9 percent unemployment, you will love this
amendment.
Mr. Speaker, our government has in the past been able to balance its
books and create surplus. When President Clinton left office, we had a
$5 trillion surplus. However, an unprovoked war, unpaid for, coupled
with tax cuts for the wealthy erased this windfall and led to our
current fiscal problems. If we truly wish to tackle the deficit, the
most effective thing we could do is create new jobs.
In the 1990s, economic prosperity helped drive deficits down. Rather
than wasting this institution's time on a cheap political stunt which
has zero chance of becoming law, we should create opportunity and work
to restore the American dream. That is a deficit reduction plan all of
us could support.
Vote down this misguided amendment.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a distinguished member of the House Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, our national debt has reached a staggering $15 trillion.
We're currently borrowing 43 cents on every dollar that's spent here in
Washington. Think of it, 43 cents on a dollar. A trillion dollars had
to be borrowed from China. Our very sovereignty is at risk when you
look at numbers like that. It's outrageous.
Our great Nation is on a dangerous path of fiscal irresponsibility
directed by a reckless addiction to spending here in Washington.
Research has consistently shown that the American people want a
balanced budget amendment. In fact, a recent survey found that 81
percent of those polled support the requirement that the Federal
Government balance its budget each year, just like American families
have to do.
Today, each of us will have the opportunity to choose sides, casting
an ``aye'' vote and standing with the American people on this issue, or
casting a ``nay'' vote and opposing what the American people are
demanding.
The balanced budget amendment is a game-changer. It will hold
Congress' feet to the fire, forcing us to live within our means just as
every American family and every American business must do every year.
It has become commonplace for Washington to spend money it doesn't have
for projects it doesn't need. This is an unacceptable position for us
to be in. Our constituents deserve better.
Washington's spending binge has put a wet blanket over our economy.
Small businesses are struggling to stay afloat, and according to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, a staggering 26 million Americans are
unemployed, underemployed, or have given up looking for a job
altogether.
Small business owners tell me that the uncertainty that they're going
through right now makes it so they won't hire people because they don't
know how much money they're going to have. What we're doing here in
Washington puts those small businesses at risk. That's why they're not
hiring.
Passing H.J. Res. 2, the balanced budget amendment, would be a huge
step in the right direction, and in my opinion is the only thing that
will actually work over the long run to get our spending under control
here in Washington.
You know, it's interesting. The President recently weighed in on
this, and one of the things that he said about the American people is
that they're lazy. I mean, what an incredible comment to make. That's
absolutely not true. That's not what the problem with the economy is.
The problem is that the government sector is sucking up so much of the
funding now that the private sector has no funds to invest or go out
and hire people and create jobs. That's the problem, not, as the
President said, that the American people are lazy. That's absolutely
not true. It's outrageous.
This is not a Democrat or a Republican issue. This is an American
issue. I had the opportunity to weigh in on this amendment back in
1995, when it was last voted on here in Congress. I voted for it,
alongside most of my Republican colleagues as well as 72 Democratic
Members of the House. I would urge them to vote with us today. Let's
pass this. It's in the interest of the American people.
{time} 1200
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, how much time does each side have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 31 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia has 40 minutes remaining.
Mr. NADLER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman), the chairman of the Economic
Opportunity Subcommittee of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee.
Mr. STUTZMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
It is a great privilege and honor to stand here today. In listening
to this crucial and very timely debate on the floor, it is one that I
believe Americans have been expecting for quite some time because
Americans are looking to Washington to see if leadership is going to
come forward and do what American families do every day, what small
businesses do every day--make sure that they don't spend more money
than they have.
When our national debt tops $15 trillion, it's clear that we're
broke. When the Senate refuses to pass any budget at all, something
clearly is wrong. When each child born today inherits nearly $48,000
worth of debt, something must be changed.
My wife, Christy, and I have two young sons--Payton and Preston, who
are 10 years old and 5 years old--and their lives are entirely in front
of them. What we do today on this floor will determine the outcome for
them and their families and for their children and their grandchildren.
This has not been a problem that has happened just under the control
of the Democrats and Barack Obama. This has happened over the last 30
years under the control of both the Republicans and Democrats. That is
why this amendment is so important.
Now, we'd all like to stand here and say, We just need to do the
right thing--and I agree with that. Yet the problem is, over the last
30 years, Washington has not done the right thing. We have accumulated
$15 trillion of debt. Debt is a disease which threatens to kill us.
Today, we must act decisively, and we must act permanently and let
the American people vote on our Constitution, allowing them to say to
Washington, Enough is enough. Small businesses and families are waiting
and watching to see if Washington is going to increase the takings on
top of an enormous and convoluted Tax Code.
I support this resolution, and I ask my colleagues to support it as
well.
Mr. NADLER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a member of the House Energy
and Commerce Committee.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I stand here in proud support of H.J. Res. 2.
I was listening to arguments on both sides of the aisle, particularly
from my colleagues the Democrats, in regard to the gentleman from North
Carolina talking about the ability of individuals to balance their own
budgets, and he made a very convincing personal argument.
Yet I would like to remind him that 1995--I wasn't here then; maybe
he was here--was the last time we had an opportunity to vote on a
balanced budget amendment, some 16 years ago, and it failed by one
single vote. The debt that this country has accumulated since that time
is $9 trillion. The rest of us, obviously, need some constraints. We
have proven that we do not have the discipline to balance the budget of
this country--$9 trillion--and that's how we get to $15 trillion worth
of debt.
So I would say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to please
support this. This is an opportunity for us not only to show the fiscal
responsibility that 75 percent of the country wants us
[[Page H7857]]
to show but also to show that spirit of bipartisanship and break the
gridlock.
I want to take just a moment, Mr. Speaker, to commend the gentleman
from Virginia, Representative Goodlatte. As a physician Member, I
sometimes think that there are too many attorneys in this body; but
thank God for the gentleman from Virginia and for his ability and
understanding of the Constitution. He has gone to the Democrat side and
the Republican side, not just in this session, but for years, in
promoting this balanced budget amendment and in bringing us all
together in a bipartisan way to do something for the American people
and for, as the gentleman from Indiana said, our children and our
grandchildren.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I am happy to yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
So without question, the time has come. This is my opportunity to
cast a vote, the most important that I will have cast in 9 years. An
opportunity like this just seldom comes. As I say, it has been 16 years
since we have had this opportunity. Don't pass on this. Let's make sure
that we do this in a bipartisan way because it takes a two-thirds vote.
I do disagree with the naysayers who say, Well, this has no chance of
passing. God help us if this has no chance of passing. This is the one
thing that we can do for this country to get us back on the right track
and to finally prove to the American people that we do have the
discipline to protect their money and to protect our children and our
grandchildren.
Mr. NADLER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), the chairman of the
Conservation, Energy, and Forestry Subcommittee, my subcommittee on the
House Agriculture Committee.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman from Virginia.
It is no secret, Mr. Speaker, that Washington has a spending
addiction. Congress has demonstrated, regardless of which party is in
charge, that the out-of-control spending just does not stop. Each
Congress, spending in budget reforms are enacted only to be revised or
ignored by the next. Unfortunate as it is, this body has reliably
circumvented any real budget process, even its own rules, in order to
fulfill its spending addiction. Routine abuses and budget gimmicks,
such as ``emergency'' designations, are designed to skirt budget
enforcement rules and to disguise the real level of spending. Similar
to rampant drug abuse in the 1980s, which led to addiction and violence
at epidemic levels, our spending habits have led to a debt crisis that
borders on an overdose.
Our country needs urgent help, Mr. Speaker. It's time for
intervention.
That's why we're here today to consider H.J. Res. 2, a balanced
budget amendment to the Constitution. Most importantly, the balanced
budget amendment will discourage Congress from circumventing its fiscal
responsibilities because a constitutional amendment cannot be revised
or ignored. This measure is the only way to force the hand of Congress
toward fiscal responsibility, ensuring that policymakers just say
``no'' to reckless spending.
Many economists and experts agree that the adoption of such amendment
would begin to address this Nation's looming debt crisis and would lay
a stronger path to long-term economic growth. The American people
overwhelmingly back a balanced budget amendment. That's exactly why
H.J. Res. 2 already has the strong support of a majority of my fellow
Representatives, including 242 bipartisan cosponsors. Our constituents
understand what it means to live within their means, and they expect
nothing less from the Federal Government.
No more denial, Mr. Speaker. It is time for this body to come clean.
It is time for each Member to decide whether or not this country will
continue down a reckless path of debt and despair or if it will quit
living beyond its means--cold turkey. It's time to rid this Chamber of
its reckless spending addiction. It's time for Congress to just say
``no'' by voting ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 2.
Mr. NADLER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms.
Linda T. Sanchez).
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in
opposition to H.J. Res. 2, the Republican plan to amend the
Constitution to reduce government investments and codify economic
stagnation.
We can all agree that it's important to get the Federal deficit under
control. However, the amendment Republicans are proposing is absolutely
the wrong way to do it. It should all be very familiar to anyone who
has experienced California's budget problems or who has even observed
them from afar. It should be familiar because, just like in California,
this legislation would require that a supermajority of both the House
of Representatives and the Senate agree to any bill which raises
Federal revenues.
This not only means potential tax increases but also any bill that
allows tax cuts to expire. In effect, the Republican majority is
insisting that the only way the Federal Government can tackle its
deficit is by reducing programs like Pell Grants, unemployment
benefits, and infrastructure projects like Federal highways. These are
the very programs that help people keep their heads above water during
tough economic times or help them achieve the American Dream; and time
and time again, the American people have said that cutting these
programs is unacceptable.
{time} 1210
I agree that we should look at ways to cut waste. However, it's
foolish to insist on severe cuts to vital programs which help people
during an economic downturn. Furthermore, the California experience has
shown that it is practically impossible for 60 percent of a political
body to agree on revenue increases, no matter how limited they are or
how much sense they might make. California has tried this flawed plan;
and guess what, it doesn't work. California's fiscal situation becomes
increasingly difficult each year because of this supermajority
requirement. Do we really want the same at the Federal Government
level?
I cannot and will not support legislation which would impose
California's flawed fiscal system on the Federal Government. I urge my
colleagues to learn from history, from a real-life example, my home
State of California, and reject this crushing and foolish amendment.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to
the gentlewoman to say that 49 out of 50 States have a balanced budget
requirement. And while she sites California as perhaps the worst
example--and it may be the worst example--still, the fiscal situation
of California is much better than the fiscal situation here in
Washington. The $25 billion deficit that they have to deal with this
year--and they have to deal with it--for a State that has one-eighth of
the population of the country of America which, taken nationwide, would
mean a $200 billion deficit nationwide. We have a $1.3 trillion
deficit, more than six times as much. And this is good discipline. It's
worked in the States. It will work here as well.
It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake), a member of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I doubt that I can match the volume that's
been displayed today, using partisan accusations as to who's
responsible for the budget mess that we're in. But I think that all of
us, we Republicans, for example, in our candid moments, would admit
that we were headed toward this fiscal cliff long before the current
President took the wheel. But we're in this together. It has been
decisions made by Republicans and Democrats to expand entitlement
programs and to expand discretionary spending that have put us in the
situation we're in today.
I think we would also concede that any bout of fiscal discipline
we've had over the past couple of decades has been caused by--or at
least accompanied by--statutory spending caps that have been put in
place. The problem is those only last for a few years, and then this
body simply waives them.
[[Page H7858]]
So we need a backstop. We need a constitutional backstop that will
force us to make decisions that we know have to be made. It is sad
commentary on this body that we have to have a constitutional balanced
budget amendment to force us to do our jobs of prioritizing spending,
but I think with a $15 trillion deficit we can concede that we need it.
So this won't make the decisions for us--we'll still have to make the
tough decisions going ahead--but we need it, nonetheless.
I urge adoption of this amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 29 minutes.
The gentleman from Virginia has 31\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. NADLER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), a member of the
Financial Services Committee.
Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for bringing this
forward to us.
The American debt was downgraded about 2 months ago; that is, we're
approaching junk bond status in the minds of certain debt raters. It's
not just that we have a $15 trillion debt--that's significant--but we
have no apparent means or way of paying it off.
Our deficit--that is, the shortfall this year is $1.5 trillion, which
will be added to that $15 trillion during the course of spending the
money. This is not just that we are in debt. It's that we're broke. And
also the raters have seen that we have gone to Social Security. Both
parties for the past 70 years have taken every cent out of the Social
Security lock box and spent it. So it's not just that we're in debt $15
trillion; it's that we have taken everything out of the piggy bank and
we've spent that.
And to my friends who are saying we could continue to borrow money,
that's also very inaccurate. We could borrow money when we ran deficits
of $300 billion. That was the amount that we ran during the last year
of President Bush, $300 billion. We can borrow that in the world. But
when we went to the trillion-dollar deficits under President Obama,
there is no nation in the world capable of lending $1 trillion. China
cannot lend $1 trillion. Their total economy of $6 trillion. So the
raters looking at our economy say, not only are they broke, but they
have no apparent way to pay it back. It's time to say that to the
American people.
So this resolution is very simple. It simply says that Washington is
going to do what you do as the American family. In order to pay off
your bills, you tighten your belt, you live within your means. That's
what we're suggesting with this balanced budget amendment, that we live
within our means, that we do not spend money that we don't have.
H.J. Res. 2 is a commonsense solution to a serious problem that
America faces. I will support it and urge support.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. The Republicans call this bill a ``balanced budget
amendment,'' but it is not balanced because it will blow a hole in the
budget of vital programs that millions of Americans depend on. It's
unbalanced, unneeded, and will undermine our struggling economy.
Republicans want us to mangle the Constitution because they cannot
manage this institution. This amendment is a means to an end. It's a
means for Republicans to end Medicare, to end Social Security and
Medicaid, to end every antipoverty program. And why? Because they
harbor an ancient animosity towards all of those programs. And their
plan is to leave them as debt-soaked relics of an era where we actually
cared about poor people, the elderly in our country, because the
Republican plan will cut critical health care and antipoverty programs,
put them on a starvation diet, and leave vulnerable Americans with the
crumbs.
Our economy now has a 9 percent unemployment rate. You know what that
means? It means that 46 million Americans today live in poverty. Do you
want to know what poverty is in America in 2011? That's a family of
four living on $22,000 a year. There are almost 9 million families
living at or below the poverty line, including 15.5 million children.
That means that one in five children in our country are living in
poverty. Those are the programs that they want to cut here today, for
the poorest children in America in 2011.
There are almost 50 million Americans at risk of not having enough
food. More than 16 million children are in danger of going to bed
tonight without a meal. One in six seniors now live in poverty,
dependent upon Medicare, dependent upon Medicaid, each of them now at
grave risk because of the Republican plan here today. Their plan is
really a Robin Hood in reverse--take from the neediest and give to the
greediest. That is the plan.
Now let's go back into the ``way back'' machine, all the way back to
the year 2000, the last time we voted on a balanced budget here in
Congress, 2000. Bill Clinton was President. It passed. The budget
balanced. And the country was feeling good. The economy was booming.
And then George Bush takes over in January of 2001. The Republicans
controlled the House. The Republicans controlled the Senate. What do
they do? Huge tax breaks for billionaires and millionaires, two wars
which were not paid for, Iraq and Afghanistan, all on the Republicans'
shoulders. And they then turn a blind eye as Wall Street turned the
entire economy into a casino, which then cascaded into the biggest
longstanding recession that we've seen since the Great Depression,
descending upon the shoulders of whom? The poor, the sick, the elderly,
the ordinary families killing themselves to pay for their mortgage each
day.
You don't need a constitutional amendment, ladies and gentlemen,
Republicans, my good friends. You have a supercommittee meeting right
now down the corridor. You know what you should do? Say: Take away
those $40 billion worth of tax breaks for the oil companies. They don't
need them. Take away the $700 billion in new nuclear weapons programs.
We don't have any targets for those nuclear weapons. Kill those
programs. Look at the tax breaks for the billionaires and millionaires.
They don't need them. Cut them right now.
{time} 1220
All of you have taken a pledge, no reductions in the tax breaks for
billionaires. No reductions in defense spending. You've tied your own
hands even as you, with crocodile tears, come out here and say how much
you care about balancing the budget and how much you care about the
American economy. The proof will come next week when you do not stand
up in order to take the tough actions needed right now for the American
people.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to address
their remarks to the Chair and not to other Members in the second
person.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to address the
Chair but in response to comments made by the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
We do need to look at that way-back machine. I hear the gentleman's
complaints about decisions made by Republicans. In the last 50 years,
and the gentleman has been here for many of those years, in the last 50
years, this Congress has balanced its budget a mere six times. Thirteen
of those years Republicans were in control of the House, and four of
those years we had balanced budgets, including the year the gentleman
mentioned.
And in that year, the gentleman voted ``no'' on the balanced budget
that was passed by this Congress that year. And the year before that,
we had a balanced budget; the gentleman voted ``no.'' And the year
before that, we had a balanced budget. And then in 1998, we had a
balanced budget. And the gentleman voted ``no'' every single time a
balanced budget was offered in this Congress. In fact, for the 37 years
that Democrats controlled the Congress in the last 50 years, only twice
did they do it.
Now, I have to agree with the gentleman about something, and that is
that Social Security and Medicare are endangered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds to say that
Social
[[Page H7859]]
Security and Medicare are endangered. And do you know why they're
endangered? Because we have a $15 trillion debt. And in all of those
years that we didn't balance the budget, what did the Congress do? They
went into the Social Security trust fund and took every penny of it and
spent it on something else.
And how ironic will it be that all that debt that we're transferring
to the next generation, all of that debt will be on our children and
grandchildren; and when they need Social Security and Medicare, it
won't be there for them, not because of anything in a balanced budget
amendment but because of the debt that we have accumulated.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, Social Security and Medicare will be there
unless we pass this balanced budget amendment because this balanced
budget amendment will cause the inability to pay for them. The trust
fund is amply funded right now for Social Security.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Gardner), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
My constituents have a very simple question for people participating
in this debate today: What part of broke don't you understand? What
part of the fact that we are borrowing 42 cents of every dollar don't
you get? Do you know what happens to the everyday American if they
borrow 42 cents of every dollar time after time after time? It's
bankruptcy. They lose their homes. They lose their ability to provide
food for their families. They go broke, just like this country is going
broke today.
Only Congress doesn't have to pay an overdraft fee. When we write
checks for more money than we have, we're not paying an overdraft fee.
You know what we're paying, we're paying interest. We're passing the
buck. We're putting our future into great debt that they cannot sustain
for current-day spending. We shouldn't be passing the buck. We should
pass the BBA, the balanced budget amendment.
I come from the State of Colorado, served in the Colorado State
Legislature where we have a strong balanced budget amendment. And you
know what that forces us to do? It forces us to make tough choices, to
make the right decisions for the people of Colorado and to make sure
that we are, indeed, balancing our budget.
Sure, it means that there are some very difficult decisions that have
to be made, but that's exactly what we were sent here to do. We weren't
sent here to fiddle while the Treasury burns. We were sent here to
solve one of the greatest challenges that this country faces, and that
is growing, insurmountable debt and deficits.
I would urge my colleagues to pass this resolution. This Congress
cannot make choices on its own. We need the guidance of a balanced
budget amendment to restrain the unrestrained fiscal mess that we have
right now.
In 1995 when we passed the balanced budget amendment, the debt has
grown $9 trillion since then. Our experience in Colorado and the 49
States that have a balanced budget amendment show that when we have a
requirement forcing us to balance the budget, we will do just that.
Don't pass the buck; pass the BBA.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
Mr. FATTAH. Since this is the Thanksgiving season, maybe rather than
denigrating the inheritance of a child born in our country, we can
celebrate it. The truth is not that as a young American you are born
with all this debt. What you're born into is as a citizen of the
greatest country anywhere in the world, the wealthiest, most powerful
Nation in the world, made up of decisions that are being decried here.
We could not balance our budget and win World War I or World War II, or
build 40,000 miles of Federal highway or build the land grant college
system.
In my church, we borrowed a mortgage to build a church, and you pay
for it over time. These 49 States that we hear, these imaginary
balanced budget amendments, all of those States borrow money. They have
a capital budget. They borrow money to build bridges and highways and
roads. This nonsense that families don't borrow money to buy homes or
cars, Republicans in the majority can do better than this. This is not
a debate between Republicans and Democrats.
We don't need a balanced budget. We need a budget as a country that
retains our leadership position in the world. We don't want to have a
balanced budget and a weak military. We don't want to have a balanced
budget but not be able to take care of the needs that have propelled
our country forward.
We just honored John Glenn and Neil Armstrong, astronauts who led our
way into space. We didn't do that on a balanced budget. We said that we
were going to lead in terms of the race to the Moon, and we led. This
country deserves better.
Republicans who are here, let us address the real issue. The real
issue is that we have a 70-year low in the amount of resources coming
into the government because we've cut taxes. The gentleman says where
can we borrow a trillion dollars from? Well, we can borrow it from the
trillion dollars of tax expenditures we are going to provide this tax
year, many to the wealthiest people of our country. We have the ability
to pay our bills. We need to make the decision to do it and leave the
Constitution alone.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), the chairman of the
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee of the Appropriations
Committee.
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman from Virginia.
An amendment to the United States Constitution should never be taken
lightly. It is a sacred and profound document. Well, 15 years ago when
Mr. Goodlatte and I and a number of others first came to town, we voted
to amend that Constitution. We were joined not only by all of the
Republicans but by 72 Democrats. Now some of those very 72 who voted
``yes'' have changed their minds. We're hearing the same old arguments:
Social Security and Medicare. When all else goes wrong in Democrat
liberal land, you start scaring seniors, children, teachers, first
responders, critical programs, and saying whatever the bill is, this
bill threatens them. Well, the worst thing you could do to Social
Security and Medicare is to go broke. And since that vote 15 years ago
when it failed in the Senate by one single Member, we have accumulated
$9.2 trillion in debt.
Balancing the budget is what 49 States do, what every city does, what
businesses and families do. It's a matter of survival. It's not a
radical concept. Oh, don't the people in Greece wish that they had a
balanced budget all those many years? And what of their Social Security
and Medicare programs right now? What will happen to the seniors in
Greece without those critical programs?
{time} 1230
If their government had done the prudent thing, the right thing, just
as we tried to do 15 years ago, what a different picture it would be in
Greece. But Greece is not alone in trying to defy the laws of financial
gravity. America seems to be doing it. For every dollar we spend, 40
cents is borrowed. And yet we are choosing to ignore all the many red
flags that are around us. But when the whole thing goes broke and melts
down, won't our children say, What were you thinking?
Mr. Speaker, this vote today is not about the next election. It is
truly about the next generation. Vote ``yes.''
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 2,
the so-called--so-called--balanced budget amendment.
I also rise, Mr. Speaker, to point out the nefarious, cynical
intergenerational warfare that has been raised as an argument for
passing this misguided so-called balanced budget amendment, to say that
we want to extract $2 trillion over the next decade from programs that
benefit seniors, like Social Security and Medicare, and say we're doing
it to keep from imposing a burden on our children and grandchildren, as
if this balanced budget amendment benefited those children.
Mr. Speaker, this program will devastate public education. It will
devastate the Federal Government's current mandatory spending in Pell
[[Page H7860]]
Grants, a program that's designed to help us meet the global challenges
of the future by educating our assets--our children.
It's a program that in the next decade will take a half trillion
dollars out of the Children's Health Insurance Program. It's a program
that will exacerbate hunger that children face right now through WIC
and our SNAP program, our food stamp program, and the earned income tax
credit. We have now one in five children today that are going to bed
hungry.
So when we say we want to balance the budget, we are balancing it on
the backs of our children. And those children that we are trying to
save--or we say that we are trying to save--must be the children of
those heirs, those 1 percent that we are now enriching.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schilling), a member of the
Agriculture Committee.
Mr. SCHILLING. I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia for
giving me the time today.
We continue to hear a common thread: Let's raise taxes on our job
creators with no solution to our spending problems.
I rise today as the people's House prepares to vote for an amendment
to our Constitution that will require Congress and the President to
balance the budget. I look forward to voting in favor of this amendment
today. Fifteen years ago, an amendment nearly identical to this one
passed the House with strong bipartisan support but failed by one
single vote in the Senate. Since that time, our debt has tripled.
Did you know that on Wednesday our national debt surpassed $15
trillion? And it has been nearly 950 days since the Senate has passed a
budget, not to mention the 20 jobs bills that are sitting over there
that they've decided not to act upon.
The American people deserve better. You deserve a credible plan to
help get our fiscal house in order, grow our economy, and get folks
back to work. It's clear, though, we cannot borrow or spend our way out
of this mess. We also cannot afford to put off badly needed but
difficult decisions. We need to tackle this unsustainable spending
addiction head on.
Since coming to Washington, my fellow freshman colleagues and I have
helped change the way the conversation has been held here for years
from ``How much can we spend?'' to ``How much can we save?'' This is a
good start, but we can do much more to get our country on a better
fiscal path and save the American Dream for our kids and our grandkids.
We have the duty to leave our kids and our grandkids with a country
better off than it is now. We have the opportunity here to
fundamentally change the way Washington does business by supporting the
balanced budget amendment. It's time for Washington to balance the
budget.
I'm pleased to vote in strong support of a balanced budget amendment
and will continue working on ways to get our fiscal house in order,
grow America's economy, and create jobs.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 2.
It represents an attack on the middle class and the most vulnerable
in our society by the Grover Norquist Tea Party Republicans. You see,
there is no fiscal emergency, but the fiscal crisis has been
manufactured by the Tea Partiers, along with Grover Norquist and the
Republicans that represent them, for the purposes of tricking the
American people into thinking that America can't pay its bills. We paid
our debts, we can pay our debts, and we'll continue to pay our debts.
Just like families of America who incur debt as a normal course of
taking care of their families, we've heard a lot of analogies to the
Federal Government should balance its budget like a family. But how
many 99ers, how many families do you know that can go out and purchase
a car for cash? How many of those 99ers, how many of those families out
there working can afford to pay cash for a house? Everybody out there
incurs debt for legitimate expenses, and this Nation has legitimate
expenses that it has to pay debts for, like two wars, like a Medicare
part D supplement, and like the Bush tax cuts that they don't want to
expire.
So what they're doing, ladies and gentlemen, is they are trying to
enshrine in the Constitution what is already an unfair tax system, a
system that favors the rich and balances the budget on the backs of the
middle class. Those are the people that pay for America's expenses, not
the corporations and wealthy individuals, many of whom do not pay one
red cent in taxes--and you know it's true, and they know it's true.
So, ladies and gentlemen, I rise in strong opposition. This is
shortsighted, mean-spirited, unfair, and wrong for America, and I urge
my colleagues to vote against it.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Walsh), chairman of the Small Business
Economic Growth Subcommittee.
Mr. WALSH of Illinois. A big thank-you to the gentleman from Virginia
for taking a lead--a very strong lead--on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, like many of my fellow freshmen, I was sent here to
Washington because we're broke. We have a government we can't afford.
Like all of us, we were sent here, though, not just to cut spending. We
were sent here, hopefully, to try to change the way this town does
business so that we never get to this point again and so that our kids
and our grandkids aren't stuck with a bill they'll never be able to pay
off.
As a freshman in Congress, the very first bill I introduced back in
March was a balanced budget amendment, and it was a stronger balanced
budget amendment than this. It included a spending limitation, and it
made it more difficult for myself and my colleagues to raise taxes. I
support this balanced budget amendment with everything I've got
because, again, we have an opportunity to do something fairly historic,
and this amendment will enable us to do that.
I've learned in my year--almost a year--as a Congressman that there's
plenty of hypocrisy in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle. The
hypocrisy today is regrettably, Mr. Speaker, with too many of our
Democratic colleagues who really would like to vote for this but they
simply can't because of political reasons.
{time} 1240
I would implore my Democratic colleagues to just think about, again,
what our kids and our grandkids will say--and we throw their names
around here often--what they will say to us 20, 30, 40 years down the
road when they know we didn't exhibit the courage we need to exhibit
right here and now.
I stand with my colleague from Virginia in full support of this
balanced budget amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. I thank my friend from New York.
I rise in strong opposition to this piece of legislation.
With all due respect, I always enjoy listening to my Republican
friends lecture us about fiscal responsibility. May I remind them that
when Bill Clinton left office we had record surpluses, and in 8 years
of George Bush, record deficits. And may I remind my Republican friends
that for 6 of those 8 years, during the Bush years, Republicans
controlled both Houses of the Congress. So if we were going to do the
right thing and attempt to balance our budget, we could have done so
then. But what did we do then? We fought two wars on the credit card;
we had tax cuts for the wealthy, which we're now paying for in terms of
our deficits now; a prescription drug program unpaid for. And so it
seems to me that if we have the resolve to do it--you know, I love
people who have newfound religion, but when they controlled the place,
we went from massive surpluses to massive deficits.
Now, this Congress needs to work with the President in passing a jobs
bill. This Congress should be passing a robust transportation bill.
This Congress should get out of the business of attacking our labor,
attacking seniors, and attacking women, and do what the American people
want us to do: Put people back to work.
A balanced budget amendment will ultimately lead to either draconian
cuts in the social safety net for some of our Nation's most cherished
programs
[[Page H7861]]
like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, or significant tax hikes
on the Nation's middle class. This is nothing more than a gimmick to
garner headlines while avoiding the tough decisions that the people
have asked us to make. You know, there may be times in the future when
we need to run a surplus, there may be times when we need to run a
deficit to stimulate the economy. This amendment handcuffs us and puts
us in a straitjacket where we have nowhere to move.
I care and my constituents care very much about preserving Medicare,
Medicaid, and Social Security. I think that if we're going to get our
budget to balance, it's not only cuts in programs that we need,
although my friends on the other side of the aisle fret about defense
cuts. We need to cut spending, yes. We also need to raise taxes on
those who can most afford to do it, the 1 percent. I think that's
something we should consider.
So while we think this is one size fits all, and we can all go home
and say, well, we tried to save the Republic, what I think this does is
handcuff us for generations to come, makes it impossible for us to
stimulate the economy, and makes it impossible for us to continue those
social service programs that the American people have come to rely on--
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. I think we need to meet in a
sensible center, not have something like this that's draconian.
Let me finally say, what's truly absurd is that we require only a
simple majority to send our men and women in uniform into harm's way,
and yet the Republican majority would require a supermajority to raise
the Nation's debt ceiling. We all saw how close our economy came to
disaster with only a simple majority vote to raise the debt ceiling the
last time.
So I would say to my colleagues, vote ``no.'' Let's do the job that
we were elected to do. Let's make the tough choices. We don't need a
balanced budget amendment.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to my
good friend from New York.
I would just say to the gentleman that we do need to do the job, but
you don't have to look ahead to wonder what's going to happen, all you
have to do is look back. Over the past 50 years we've balanced the
budget just six times and we've run up a $15 trillion national debt.
Now, the gentleman has cited some criticism of Republican votes, but
there are plenty of Democratic votes in the 4 years that the Democrats
were in control of this Congress. Just recently we added $4 trillion to
the national debt. Now, the fact of the matter is, over the 50 years,
37 of those years Democrats have controlled the House of
Representatives and only 2 of those 37 years was it balanced. So when
the gentleman says that some years will run surpluses and some years
will run deficits, that's very true, but the history has been almost
all of those years will run deficits unless we have a discipline in our
Constitution to require that we do otherwise.
And I would also point out that in the 4 years since the gentleman
has been here and I've been here we've had balanced budgets. The
gentleman, for I'm sure reasons that he felt were very justified, voted
against all four of the budgets that balanced in this Congress.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to reply to what
the gentleman just said.
The fact is, the reason this country is in such deficit is because of
a deliberate Republican crusade over the last 30 years to reduce taxes
on the rich in order to deliberately create huge deficits, and to then
use those deficits as the excuse to justify large cuts to gut Social
Security and Medicare and Medicaid and education programs that they
have never liked in the first place but could not justify cutting
without it.
Taxes used to be 18 to 19 percent of the economy, of GDP. Now they're
about 14 percent of GDP, and yet the Republicans won't increase it
because we have decreased the taxes on the rich and on the
corporations. The country is not broke; we're just not taxing the
millionaires and the billionaires the way we used to.
And the fact is, you look at the history here. When Ronald Reagan
took over as President of the United States, the entire national debt
of the United States accumulated from George Washington through Jimmy
Carter was less than $800 billion. Then you had 12 years of Reagan and
the first Bush cutting taxes on the rich. When Clinton took over, you
had a $4.3 trillion deficit, and it was expected to go much higher. We
made the tough decisions; we voted for increased taxes in 1993 and for
cutting the budget. And when Clinton left office 8 years later, the
budget had been balanced. But from the time we made that vote in 1993,
the deficit decreased every year until it became a surplus, then it
increased every year. And when Bush II took over, we were looking at a
$5.7 trillion surplus over the next 10 years, and we were going to pay
off the entire national debt. Then we had those huge Bush tax cuts and
the irresponsible, unpaid-for wars. And when Bush left office, we had a
$9.5 trillion deficit--a turnaround of $15 trillion--and a recession,
which causes the bigger deficits now.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
The CBO estimated, before President Obama took office, that the next
year's deficit would be $1.2 trillion before he did anything. And I
would remind us that nondefense discretionary spending in this country
has not gone up by a nickel, adjusted for inflation and population
growth, since 2001, when we had a huge surplus.
The problem is that our taxes on the rich are too low. We cannot
reach an agreement in the supercommittee because the Republicans will
not tax the rich. That's the basic problem, and a balanced budget
amendment will not solve that problem.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the
gentleman.
First of all, let me just be very clear that when the gentleman talks
about the sins that he wants to impose upon Republicans for not
balancing the budget, I think that's a very good argument. But since
this is a bipartisan bill and dozens of his colleagues will be voting
for this, I think it's because those of us who vote for it recognize
that this is true on both sides of the aisle, that there has been a
lack of tough decisions that have led to balanced budgets.
Every single year I vote for the toughest budget offered in this
Congress. Those budgets never pass. Why? Because there's no requirement
that they do so. So, what do we have? We have complaints on the other
side of the aisle that this is a terrible plot on our part to bring
about all kinds of harsh cuts. This balanced budget amendment doesn't
make any distinction between whether you balance a budget by raising
taxes or cutting spending. I'm going to do it to cut spending because I
see lots of waste in our government. And I've voted for budgets that
bring about a balance without raising taxes, but that is not the point
here. The point is that it doesn't get done either way.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
As to the gentleman's complaint that this is all because we haven't
taxed the rich, my goodness, in the last Congress, under the control of
your party, you extended all of those tax cuts for everyone. And the
fact of the matter is that the top 1 percent of American families pay
38 percent--38 percent--of the personal income taxes in this country
today.
{time} 1250
That, by the way, is up from 34 percent in 2001. So all of this can
be on the table when we have a discussion about how to balance the
budget.
All we're debating here today is the principle of whether or not we
should balance the budget and looking at the past history where we have
not, indeed, balanced it but six times in 50 years.
Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. West), who is not only a member of the
House Armed Services Committee, but a great advocate for fiscal
responsibility and a balanced budget.
Mr. WEST. I want to thank my colleague from Virginia, and I want to
say that I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 2, which is the balanced
budget amendment.
[[Page H7862]]
The United States of America has just topped $15 trillion in debt;
$4.4 trillion of new debt has been added.
In Greece we see a debt to GDP ratio of 128 percent. Mr. Speaker, in
Italy it's 120 percent debt to GDP ratio. The United States of America
is now at 101 percent debt to GDP ratio. It is about time now that we
start to make a decision. Are we going to be fiscally disciplined? Are
we going to have fiscal responsibility? Are we going to continue to
bankrupt the future of our children and grandchildren because we were
sent here to be elected officials, sent here to be leaders and we're
afraid to make the tough decisions?
Historically, we have shown that we are not going to make those tough
decisions. Now, I've only been here for 11 months; but I will tell you
that right now we have to do something different, and it has to start
now. Or else what do I say, Mr. Speaker, to my two daughters, 18 and
14? Am I going to say to them that I did not have the courage to stand
here today and make the right decisions in order to ensure that they
have a bright and prosperous future in the United States of America?
It is not about raising taxes. In fiscal year 2011 we saw a 6.5
percent increase in revenues in the United States of America; yet we
still had a $1.3 trillion deficit, which follows on the heels of a
$1.42 trillion and a $1.29 trillion deficit.
Now is the time for a balanced budget amendment. If not now, then
when, when we hit $20 trillion in debt?
Mr. Speaker, I think that each and every one of us here today, when
we cast our vote, there needs to be that little yellow Y next to our
names because if it's a red N next to our names, we're telling the
American people that we're not willing to stand up and make the hard
decisions, we're not willing to make ourselves fiscally responsible.
And I think that's absolutely reprehensible.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would note that the gentleman from
Virginia has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from New York
has 13 minutes remaining.
Mr. NADLER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), a member of the House
Veterans' Affairs Committee and a great supporter of the balanced
budget amendment.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am indeed a great supporter of
the balanced budget amendment, and I stand in strong support of it
today.
You know, it's amazing to me we still keep talking about the Bush-era
tax cuts. Those same tax cuts are today's current tax law that have
been affirmed by this Congress, this Senate, and signed into law by
this President. So why we keep blaming financial woes on President Bush
is beyond me.
But let's make one thing perfectly clear. The American people are not
taxed too little. The problem is that Washington spends too much. This
has been going on for years, and it needs to stop now. We need a
balanced budget amendment because Washington has clearly indicated its
inability to discipline itself.
This balanced budget amendment offers Congress and the President a
very clear choice, either stand with the already overtaxed American
families and small businesses who have to balance their budgets on a
daily basis, or stand with the Washington establishment that always
demands more of the American people, more of their hard-earned tax
dollars without any accountability for how they spend their money.
American families have to stick to a budget every month, so why
should the Federal Government be any different? We can't keep
mortgaging our children's future to China.
It's time to take a stand, Mr. Speaker. The ``tax and spend and then
blame the American people for not paying their `fair share' game'' must
end, and it can end today. Passing the balanced budget amendment will
help bring this country back to economic prosperity and end this game.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Jackson) for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
enter into the Record a letter of national organizations opposing the
balanced budget amendment. They include: the Children's Welfare League
of America, the Children's Defense Fund, the Children's Dental Health
Project, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Division of
Early Childhood of the Council For Exceptional Children, the Easter
Seals, Every Child Matters Education Fund, Families USA, the Forum for
Youth Investment, the Foster Family-based Treatment Association,
Horizons For Homeless Children, the National Association for Adults
with Special Learning Needs, the National Association For Education of
Young Children, the National Association of Elementary School
Principals, the National Association of Private Special Education
Centers, the National Association of School Psychologists, the National
Association of Secondary School Principals, the National Black Child
Development Institute, the National Partnership for Women and Families,
the National School Boards Association, School Social Work Association
of America, YouthBuild USA, the YWCA, the AIDS Alliance for Children,
Youth and Families, the Alliance For Educational Excellence, the
Association of Education Service Agencies.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
National Organizations Opposing the Balanced Budget Amendment
November 16, 2011.
Dear Representative/Senator: The 275 undersigned national
organizations strongly urge you to oppose any balanced budget
amendment to the United States Constitution.
A balanced budget constitutional amendment would damage the
economy, not strengthen it. Demanding that policymakers cut
spending and/or raise taxes, even when the economy slows, is
the opposite of what is needed to stabilize a weak economy
and avert recessions. Such steps would risk tipping a
faltering economy into recession or worsening an ongoing
downturn, costing large numbers of jobs while blocking worthy
investments to stimulate jobs and growth and address the
nation's urgent needs in infrastructure and other areas.
According to a new analysis of a balanced budget amendment
by Macroeconomic Advisers, one of the nation's preeminent
private economic forecasting firms, if a constitutional
balanced budget amendment had already been ratified and were
now being enforced for fiscal year 2012, ``the effect on the
economy would be catastrophic.'' The analysis reports that if
the 2012 budget were balanced through spending cuts, those
cuts would have to total about $1.5 trillion in 2012 alone,
which they estimate would throw about 15 million more people
out of work, double the unemployment rate from 9 percent to
approximately 18 percent, and cause the economy to shrink by
about 17 percent instead of growing by an expected 2 percent.
Additionally, all versions of the balanced budget amendment
being considered also contain a Provision requiring three-
fifths of the whole membership of both houses to raise the
debt limit, making risk of default more likely and empowering
a willful minority to hold the full faith and credit of the
U.S. hostage to whatever other political demands they may
have. The difficulty of raising the debt limit this summer
illustrates how hard it can be to secure the necessary votes
even when the consequences are so grave. Only two of the last
ten debt limit increases achieved a three-fifths vote, and in
those two cases, only because the increases were imbedded in
other must-pass legislation. In short, a balanced budget
amendment is a recipe for making recessions more frequent,
longer, and deeper, while requiring severe cuts that would
harshly affect seniors, children, veterans, people with
disabilities, homeland security , activities, public health
and safety, environmental protection, education and medical
research. It would almost certainly necessitate massive cuts
to vital programs including Social Security, Medicare,
Medicaid, veterans' benefits and lead to even deeper cuts
than the House-passed budget.
A balanced budget amendment has no place in the
Constitution of the United States. Our Constitution has
served the nation well because it represents enduring
principles that are the foundations of our government. It
should not be used as a substitute for real leadership on
fiscal policy.
We strongly urge you to oppose any constitutional balanced
budget amendment.
Sincerely,
9to5, National Association of Working Women, AFL-CIO, AIDS
Alliance for Children, Youth & Families, AIDS Community
Research Initiative of America, The AIDS Institute, AIDS
Project Los Angeles, AIDS United, Alliance for a Just
Society, Alliance for Excellent Education, Alliance for
Justice.
Alliance for Retired Americans, American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education, American Association of
Community Colleges, American Association of School
Administrators (AASA), American Association of University
Professors, American Association of University Women (AAUW),
American Counseling Association, American
[[Page H7863]]
Dance Therapy Association, American Educational Research
Association, American Federation of Government Employees,
AFL-CIO, American Federation of School Administrators, AFL-
CIO, American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME), American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO,
American Jewish Committee, American Medical Rehabilitation
Providers Association (AMRPA),
American Medical Student Association (AMSA), American
Network of Community Options and Resources, American Postal
Workers Union, AFL-CIO, American Psychiatric Association,
American Public Health Association, American Rights at Work,
American School Counselor Association, Americans for
Democratic Action, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination
Committee (ADC), The Arc of the United States, Asian American
Justice Center, member of Asian American Center for Advancing
Justice, Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum,
Association for Career and Technical Education, Association
of Adult Literacy Professional Developers, Association of
Assistive Technology Act Programs (ATAP).
Association of Education Service Agencies (AESA),
Association of School Business Officials, Association of
University Centers on Disabilities (AUCD), Autism National
Committee, AVAC: Global Advocacy for HIV Prevention, Bazelon
Center for Mental Health Law, Bienestar Human Services, Bread
for the World, Break the Cycle, Building and Construction
Trades Department, AFL-CIO, B'nai B'rith International,
Campaign for America's Future, Campaign for Community
Change.
CANN--Community Access National Network, Center for Law and
Social Policy (CLASP), The Center for Media and Democracy,
Center for Medicare Advocacy, Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, Child Welfare League of America (CWLA),
Children's Defense Fund, Children's Dental Health Project,
Cities for Progress, Institute for Policy Studies, Citizens
for Global Solutions, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics
in Washington, Citizens for Tax Justice.
Clinical Social Work Association, Coalition for Health
Funding, Coalition of Labor Union Women, Coalition on Human
Needs, Commission on Adult Basic Education, Committee for
Education Funding, Common Cause, Communications Workers of
America (CWA), Community Action Partnership, Community Food
Security Coalition, Community Organizations in Action,
Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED), Council for
Children with Behavioral Disorders.
Council for Exceptional Children, Council for Opportunity
in Education, Council of Administrators of Special Education,
Council of the Great City Schools, CREDO Action, Defenders of
Wildlife, Democracy 21, Demos, Department for Professional
Employees, AFL-CIO, Direct Care Alliance, Disability Rights
Education and Defense Fund, Division for Early Childhood of
the Council for Exceptional Children (DEC).
Easter Seals, Elev8 (Baltimore, Chicago, New Mexico, and
Oakland), Every Child Matters Education Fund, FairTest, the
National Center for Fair & Open Testing, Inc., Families USA,
Farmworker Justice, Feminist Majority, First Focus Campaign
for Children, Food & Water Watch, Food Research & Action
Center (FRAC), Forum for Youth Investment, Foster Family-
based Treatment Association.
Franciscan Action Network (FAN), Friends Committee on
National Legislation, Friends of the Earth, Gamaliel,
Generations United, GLSEN, Gray Panthers, Growth & Justice,
Half in Ten, Health & Disability Advocates, Health Care for
America Now, Health GAP (Global Access Project).
HealthHIV, HIV Law Project, Horizons for Homeless Children,
Housing Works, Interfaith Worker Justice, International
Association of Fire Fighters, International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, International Brotherhood
of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers,
and Helpers, AFL-CIO.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, International Society
for Technology in Education, International Union of Police
Associations, AFL-CIO, International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW), Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Laborers'
International Union of North America (LiUNA!), Latino
Commission on AIDS, The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
Rights.
Leadership Team, Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia,
League of Conservation Voters, League of Rural Voters, League
of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), League of Women
Voters of the United States, Learning Disabilities
Association of America, Main Street Alliance, Medicare Rights
Center, Mental Health America, NAACP.
National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, National Active
and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE), National
Alliance for Partnerships in Equity, National Alliance of
State & Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD), National
Assembly on School-Based Health Care, National Association
for Adults with Special Learning Needs, National Association
for Children's Behavioral Health, National Association for
College Admission Counseling, National Association for
Hispanic Elderly, National Association for Music Education.
National Association for the Education of Young Children,
National Association of Area Agencies on Aging (n4a),
National Association of Councils on Developmental
Disabilities, National Association of County Behavioral
Health and Developmental Disability Directors (NACBHDD),
National Association of Elementary School Principals,
National Association of Federally Impacted Schools, National
Association of Government Employees/SEIU, National
Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO),
National Association of Letter Carriers, National Association
of Nutrition and Aging Services Programs (NANASP).
National Association of People with AIDS (NAPWA), National
Association of Private Special Education Centers, National
Association of School Psychologists, National Association of
Secondary School Principals (NASSP), National Association of
State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium,
National Association of State Directors of Special Education
(NASDSE), National Association of State Head Injury
Administrators, National Association of Thrift Savings Plan
Participants, National Black Child Development Institute,
National Center for Family Literacy.
National Center for Law and Economic Justice, National
Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence, National Coalition
Against Domestic Violence, National Coalition for Asian
Pacific American Community Development, National Coalition
for LGBT Health, National Coalition for Literacy, National
Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, National
Congress of American Indians, The National Consumer Voice for
Quality Long-Term Care, National Council for Community
Behavioral Healthcare.
National Council for the Social Studies, National Council
of Jewish Women, National Council of La Raza (NCLR), National
Council of Women's Organizations (NCWO), National Council on
Independent Living, National Disability Rights Network,
National Education Association (NEA), National Employment Law
Project (NELP), National Fair Housing Alliance, National
Family Caregivers Association, National Federation of Federal
Employees.
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund, National
Health Care for the Homeless Council, National Hispanic
Council on Aging (NHCOA), National Housing Trust, National
Immigration Law Center, National Latina Institute for
Reproductive Health, National Law Center on Homelessness &
Poverty, National Low Income Housing Coalition, National
Organization for Women (NOW), National Partnership for Women
& Families, National Pediatric AIDS Network, National
People's Action.
National Priorities Project, National Respite Coalition,
National Rural Education Advocacy Coalition, National Rural
Education Association (NREA), National School Boards
Association, National Skills Coalition, National
Superintendents Roundtable, National Treasury Employees
Union, National Urban League, National WIC Association,
National Women's Conference Committee,
National Women's Law Center, Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC), NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice
Lobby, Not Dead Yet, OMB Watch, Paralyzed Veterans of
America, People For the American Way (PFAW), Population
Action International, Progressive States Action, Project
Inform, Public Citizen, Public Education Network.
Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities Coalition (REHDC),
Rebuild The Dream, RESULTS, Sargent Shriver National Center
on Poverty Law, School Social Work Association of America,
Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Sexuality
Information and Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS), Share
Our Strength, Sisters of Mercy Institute Justice Team, Social
Security Disability Coalition, Social Security Works.
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, Stand Up for Rural
America, Robert S. Warwick, Steering Committee, Stewards of
Affordable Housing for the Future (SAHF), Strengthen Social
Security Campaign, Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social
Justice, TESOL International Association, Transportation
Equity Network, Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO,
Treatment Access Expansion Project, Treatment Action Group
(TAG).
Trust for America's Health (TFAH), Union for Reform
Judaism, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of
the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States
and Canada, United Cerebral Palsy, United Church of Christ
Justice and Witness Ministries, United Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers of America (UE), United for a Fair Economy,
The United Methodist Church--General Board of Church and
Society, United Mine Workers, United Spinal Association,
United States Student Association (USSA).
United Steelworkers (USW), USAction, US Psychiatric
Rehabilitation Association (USPRA), VillageCare, Voices for
America's Children, Voices for Progress, Wider Opportunities
for Women (WOW), Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement
(WISER), The Woodhull Sexual Freedom Alliance, Working
America, YouthBuild USA, YWCA USA, ZERO TO THREE.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I'd like my good friend from
Virginia, the distinguished chairman of
[[Page H7864]]
the Judiciary Committee, to engage me in a dialogue on a series of
questions.
The most important question to be raised with respect to the BBA, at
least for me, and I believe most Americans, is how does the balanced
budget amendment narrow certain gaps that are obvious in our society?
The first gap, Mr. Chairman, is the social gap between racial
minorities and the majority population.
How does the balanced budget amendment narrow that gap?
I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. The balanced budget amendment is fair to all because
all it simply says is that for all time, the people of this country
want their government to live within their means, not just right now,
but in the future as well. Right now, we're not anywhere near living
within our means; $1.3 trillion deficits each of the last 3 years, all
that's being passed on to those children.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Respectfully, Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my
time, it does not reduce the gap between racial minorities and the
majority population.
My next question, there's a gender gap in our society. Women earn 76
cents to the dollar of what men earn in our society.
How does the balanced budget amendment close the gap between what
women earn in our society and what men earn in our society?
Mr. GOODLATTE. If you don't balance the budget and you continue to
pile up enormous debt, women, children, minorities, all will suffer in
the future because our economy will shrink, just like Greece's economy
is shrinking right now because they can't meet their obligations.
And to answer the gentleman's question, I think it's best to turn to
those people themselves.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Respectfully, Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my
time, the balanced budget amendment does not close the gap between
women who earn 76 cents to the dollar of what men make, because only
the Federal Government in the 50 States can close the gap between what
women earn in our society and what men earn in our society.
How does the balanced budget amendment close the economic gap between
the rich and the poor in our society?
I yield to my friend from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, I just pointed out that the rich pay far, far,
far more in taxes than other people do, and they should. But this
balanced budget amendment doesn't make any distinction between how you
balance it, whether it's by increasing revenues, whether it's by
economic growth, or whether it's by tax increases.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, the failure of this
balanced budget amendment to not make any distinction between the rich
and the poor is part of the fallacy and the problem with the balanced
budget amendment.
We are here as representatives of the people to close profound gaps
that exist between our constituents and the society. We're supposed to
be one America. We're supposed to be all Americans. We're supposed to
be one people, e pluribus unum, through many, one, going somewhere. But
what I'm hearing from the distinguished chairman is that the gaps will
not close.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I would be happy to yield to the chairman.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I'm not the chairman of the Judiciary Committee;
Congressman Smith is. But I am happy to be here in his stead.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman
controlling time for the majority.
Infrastructure gaps, upgrades to roads in communities that have been
left behind, bridges, ports, levees, water and sewer systems--how does
the balanced budget amendment propose to close the infrastructure gaps
that exist in our society where the States themselves have failed to do
so?
Mr. GOODLATTE. If you don't have the resources to pay for what you
need because you've spent it on a lot of other things, you're not going
to have the infrastructure.
{time} 1300
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, I must assume, then,
there is no goal of the balanced budget amendment to actually close the
infrastructure gap.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Absolutely there's a goal of doing that, and it is the
goal of being able to generate a growing economy that results from
living within your means and then using those means to pay for what our
society needs.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, it is obvious that the
balanced budget amendment does not narrow the economic, social, gender,
and generational gap and infrastructural gaps in our country.
Mr. Speaker, vote down the BBA. Give the American people a reason to
believe that the Federal Government can close the gaps that exist.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say to the
gentleman that the balanced budget amendment also will not deliver a
pennant to the Chicago Cubs.
Now, let me also say this. In talking about those groups that the
gentleman is rightly concerned about how they will do in the future,
CNN asked them what they thought of a balanced budget amendment to the
United States Constitution, and 75 percent of women said they favored a
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution; 72 percent of nonwhite
voters said they favored a balanced budget amendment to the
Constitution; 79 percent of our senior citizens said they favored a
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution; 79 percent of those who
earn less than $50,000 a year said they favor a balanced budget
amendment to the United States Constitution. And the same is true
whether you look at urban areas, suburban areas, rural areas, or any
geographic region of our country. Consistently, they support a balanced
budget amendment to the Constitution.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLATTE. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. What would the balanced budget amendment do
for the Chicago White Sox? I'm a South Sider.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I don't know. I'm a Boston Red Sox fan. We finally got
ours, but we have a ways to go.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, since the gentleman has admitted that the
balanced budget amendment would not deliver the pennant to the White
Sox or the Red Sox or the Cubs, or, I suppose, the Yankees, there's no
argument to the balanced budget amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, who is the chief
deputy whip and a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Roskam.
Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
There's a level of anxiety that we're all sensing back at home as
people are looking at Washington, DC, for solutions, and there are
various tales that are going on right now in terms of what the Joint
Select Committee is going to be able to produce, and the fact of the
matter is we don't know what the yield is going to be of that
negotiation. That's still ongoing, and we will be dealing with that
next week.
But we know what we can do right now, Madam Speaker. We can create a
buoyancy and a sense of clarity and a sense of cohesiveness to seize
upon a bipartisan moment, a moment that the country came close to in
1995. It came within a whisker of passing the balanced budget amendment
and sending it out to the States. Over 70 House Democrats in 1995,
including several of the current leaders, voted in favor of that
amendment. And now here we are, and we have that opportunity to do the
same thing, although, to do it successfully.
This is not about donkeys and elephants. This is ultimately about us
coming together as a Congress in a thoughtful way that says one thing
to the United States, and that is we can govern wisely; we can govern
forthrightly; we can live within our means;
[[Page H7865]]
and we can do what the overwhelming majority, Madam Speaker, of what
the American public wants us to do, and that is to balance our budget.
I urge both sides of the aisle to shrug off the bad advice, frankly,
of the Democratic leadership and to come down here in a short period of
time and vote ``aye.''
Mr. NADLER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta), a member of the House Energy and
Commerce Committee.
Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding.
I had the privilege for 6 years of serving as a county commissioner
in Ohio and serving in the general assembly. During that time, we saw
good times and we saw bad times in the economy. But in the bad times,
our constitution told us in the State of Ohio that we had to balance
our books to make sure that we didn't overspend. And that's what this
House has to do and this country has to do.
You know, when we look back, we don't have a very good track record--
over 50 years and only balanced a budget six times during that period
of time. That's horrendous.
It's kind of interesting. I was at a town hall. I was talking one
day, and one of my farmers came up and asked this question. He said, I
don't understand what the problem is in Washington. He said, What's the
President want to spend?'' And I told him it's about 3.8 trillion. He
said, How much have you got? I told him what we thought the revenue was
going to be for the year. He said, It's simple. All you've got to do is
subtract your revenues from what you want to spend, and that's all you
get to spend is just that revenue. You don't spend over the top of it.
People back home understand it. Because people back home sit around
their kitchen tables, their dining room tables, and they get their
pencils and papers out and they figure out how much they can spend.
It's not complicated.
But we've got to start thinking about this because we're in debt now
$15 trillion. And it went over this week. When I have to look at my
kids' faces and kids down the street, and when I go into schools and
talk to these young children, they're going to ask me in 10 to 15
years, What did you do to us, not for us?
It's time that this Congress acts and passes this balanced budget
amendment. We've been talking about it for years, and we have that
opportunity today. I thank the gentleman for bringing it forth. I wish
I could vote for it more than once today. But we must pass this today.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.
I spoke yesterday on this issue. My good friend, Mr. Goodlatte, and I
have talked a number of times about this.
In 1995, as I said yesterday, I voted for an amendment very similar
to this, almost exactly like it. I had a confidence at that point in
time that, in an emergency, three-fifths of us would come together and
vote to do that which the country needed to keep it stable and safe.
Regrettably, over the 16 years, I have lost that confidence. I've
lost that confidence this year, where, frankly, on the majority's side
of the aisle we would not have passed a CR to keep the government open
once. We wouldn't have passed it a second time; and, very frankly, had
we had to rely on the votes solely of the majority side, as we have in
the past on my side, we would have defaulted on our debt.
That is not a good context in which to adopt an amendment that puts
the country at risk if three-fifths are not available to act in an
emergency. As a result, I will not vote for this amendment, and I urge
my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
We are engaged at this very day in an effort to try to come to
agreement on how we balance the budget; and, very frankly, we only need
51 percent, and 51 percent is not there.
But we have balanced the budget, and we balanced it without an
amendment. We balanced it in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. And my
Republican colleagues rightfully say, ``Well, we offered those
budgets.'' Yes, they did. But I will tell you, I have no doubt, not a
single doubt, that if the surpluses that were created by those budgets
had been available in 1998 and Bill Clinton had not said save Social
Security first, that what we would have done is cut revenues deeply and
had deficits during those 4 years. Now, you may disagree, but I have no
doubt, based upon the philosophy that I have heard since 1981 from my
Republican friends, that that would have been the case.
{time} 1310
I said yesterday that what we need is not a balanced budget
amendment, that what we need is a balanced budget.
How do we get to a balanced budget?
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) pointed out he was a county
commissioner. Now, I'll bet as a county commissioner he probably had to
pay for what he bought. He gave the analogy, if you've got X coming in,
then that's what you spend, not X plus Y. The fact of the matter is his
party has spent X plus Y, plus Z, plus A, plus B, plus C, and has run a
deficit for every single year they had the Presidency during the last
30 years I've been in the Congress--without fail.
Now, what happened to bring us a balanced budget?
First of all, we had two parties responsible. I don't think we could
have done it with just one party--my party or your party. We had two
parties responsible, and we constrained one another. Then we had
extraordinary growth in our economy, and that's what brought us a
balanced budget. But we also adopted in 1990, again in 1993 and in
1997--and I tell my good friend, the sponsor of this, sometimes he
voted for PAYGO and sometimes he did not, and your party abandoned the
principle of paying for what you bought in 2001.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Roby). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. NADLER. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. HOYER. As a result of abandoning that PAYGO responsibility, you
could cut revenues very deeply and not pay for them, not cut spending.
It takes no courage, I suggest to my friends, to cut taxes--none
whatsoever. Everybody is happy. Paying for bills is a lot tougher. It
requires a lot more courage, a lot more responsibility. But you
jettisoned statutory PAYGO in the 2000s, and you went on a spending
binge. Not only did you blow a hole in the deficit, but you also blew a
hole in the economy, and we saw the worst job creation of any
administration since Herbert Hoover because the economy, rightfully,
was not confident that we would manage our finances correctly.
What we need, ladies and gentlemen, in this House is a balanced
budget, not a balanced budget amendment. Let us summon the courage, the
will, and the ability to work together immediately on this Joint Select
Committee on Deficit Reduction, but let us do it day after day after
day. Then when the issues come before you, have the courage to either
vote against spending or to vote for the revenues to pay for what all
of us have wanted to buy.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind the Members that
remarks in debate must be addressed to the Chair and not to others in
the second person.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to
the distinguished minority whip and to point out this chart.
The gentleman is quite right when he talks about profligacy when
there have been Republican Congresses. Although, I would point out to
the gentleman that, when we were in the majority and when we had
President Bill Clinton and when we had those four balanced budgets, he
voted for one but not the three others. We did not cut taxes then.
Taxes were cut after the attack on this country, on September 11, 2001,
to stimulate the economy, and we got roundly criticized for the
deficits that ran up during that time.
Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield? Because the gentleman is not
accurate on that.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I will yield to the gentleman from Maryland in just a
minute.
[[Page H7866]]
This chart show that, in 2004, we had a $400 billion deficit. It was
the highest deficit in American history, and it was part of the reason
we lost our majority later on. Then in 2007, as the deficit stepped
down each of the interceding years, the gentleman from Maryland became
the majority leader, and the gentlewoman from California became the
Speaker of the House--and look at what has happened to our deficits
ever since.
The Congress writes budgets; the Congress doesn't balance budgets.
Both parties are to blame.
There have been six balanced budgets in the last 50 years. In 37 of
those years, Democrats only balanced it twice. This is a bipartisan
balanced budget amendment that the gentleman voted for once before. He
should join us today and set the future on a different track.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HOYER. The gentleman, I take it, has no time to yield.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I don't. I have all these speakers.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
whip.
Mr. HOYER. The gentleman's chart is very interesting. He talks about
voting for budgets.
I didn't agree with some of the priorities in your budget; that's
accurate. He is correct that we didn't cut taxes, but he is incorrect
as to when you cut taxes. You cut taxes in April, months before 9/11,
and you gave away a lot of money and you didn't pay for it. You didn't
cut spending in order to pay for it in your budgets that you offered.
Furthermore, what the gentleman doesn't point out is in 1993, to a
person, you voted against a program which was designed to pay our
bills--to a person. You said it would destroy the economy.
We had the best economy and the largest budget surplus that you've
had and an administration that is the only administration in your
lifetime that ended its 96 months with a surplus, Bill Clinton's.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the former chairman of the House
Energy and Commerce Committee.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentlelady from Alabama for her
chairmanship of this historic debate, and I thank the gentleman from
Virginia for his leadership and his willingness to yield me time.
Madam Speaker, in January 1985, I held up my right hand, and I held
my 2-year-old daughter in my left hand as I stood right out here in
front of the podium and took the oath to be the Congressman of the
Sixth Congressional District of Texas. As soon as I was sworn in, I
signed my first bill and put it right over there in the hopper--the Tax
Limitation/Balanced Budget Amendment.
The total public debt that year was less than $5 trillion. In January
of 1995, I took the oath of office and then led the debate on the
Contract with America balanced budget amendment. We actually had two
votes that day--one on the Tax Limitation/Balanced Budget Amendment,
which got about 260-something votes, and then we came back and voted on
a balanced budget amendment without the tax limitation provision, and
it passed and went to the Senate.
The public debt that day was a little under $8 trillion. Today, the
public debt is $15 trillion--$10 trillion more than in January of 1985
and $7 trillion more than in January of 1995.
How many years do we have to stand here and bemoan the fact that we
need more courage or more this or more that and then pile up more
public debt?
The annual deficit this year, the deficit in 1 year, is more than the
total Federal budget was in 1985--the total budget.
I want to thank Mr. Goodlatte for bringing this bill forward. I want
to thank the Republican leadership for putting it on the floor.
We owe $15 trillion, Madam Speaker, and we're going to borrow another
$1.5 trillion. Let's stop the madness. Let's vote for this amendment
and send it to the Senate.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Johnson) for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
submit the following two documents into the Record:
One is from the International Association of Fire Fighters, and the
other is from the AARP--both of which express their opposition to this
ill-founded measure before us, H.J. Res. 2.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman's request
is granted.
There was no objection.
International Association
of Fire Fighters,
July 28, 2011.
Member of Congress,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative, On behalf of the nation's nearly
300,000 professional fire fighters and emergency medical
personnel, I urge you to oppose any balanced budget amendment
to the United States Constitution.
Although there is a clear need to lower the long-term
federal budget deficit, requiring a balanced budget through a
constitutional amendment would be disastrous for the U.S.
economy. During periods of economic downturns, the federal
government's safety-net programs like unemployment insurance,
Medicaid, and food stamps face greater demand right when
federal receipts are in rapid decline. Requiring a balanced
budget every year would force cuts to these and other
important programs or force tax increases. Either
prescription would risk tipping a faltering economy into
recession or making recessions worse.
Furthermore, any constitutional balanced budget amendment
would limit the ability of the federal government to make
important investments in worthy causes, including crucial
public safety and homeland security programs. Even at a time
of fiscal austerity, we must continue to provide for the
country's public safety and homeland security needs. Any
constitutional balanced budget amendment would grossly
undermine the ability to protect the lives and well-being of
Americans nationwide.
The nation's fire fighters understand and support the need
to reduce federal spending, but passage of a constitutional
balanced budget amendment would further damage the already
weakened economy and prevent the federal government from
making critical investments.
Again, I urge you to vote against any balanced budget
amendment to the United States Constitution. Thank you for
considering the views of our nation's first responders.
Sincerely,
Harold A. Schaitberger,
General President.
____
AARP,
November 17, 2011.
Dear Representative: On behalf of our members and other
Americans who are age 50 and older, AARP is writing to
express our opposition to H.J. Res. 2, a balanced budget
amendment to the Constitution of the United States. H.J. Res.
2 would subject Social Security and Medicare, as well as all
other spending, to potentially very deep cuts, without regard
to the impact on the health and financial security of
individuals. AARP strongly opposes proposals that can result
in arbitrary and harmful cuts to Social Security and
Medicare.
N.J. Res. 2 would prohibit outlays for a fiscal year
(except those for repayment of debt principal) from exceeding
total receipts for that fiscal year. This is the equivalent
of imposing a constitutional cap on all spending that is
equivalent to the revenues raised in any given year.
Revenues, however, fluctuate based on many factors, including
the health of the economy and the rate of labor
participation. Consequently, spending would of necessity also
fluctuate, and as a result, a balanced budget amendment would
not allow the provision of predictable Social Security and
Medicare benefits that can be reliably delivered during an
individual's retirement years. Individuals who have
contributed their entire working lives to earn a predictable
benefit during their retirement would find that their
retirement income and health care out of pocket costs would
vary significantly year to year, making planning difficult,
and peace of mind impossible.
It is particularly inappropriate to subject Social Security
to a balanced budget amendment given that Social Security is
an off-budget program that is separately funded through its
own revenue stream, including significant trust fund reserves
to finance benefits. Imposing a cap on Social Security
outlays is unjustifiable, especially when the Social Security
trust funds have run a surplus for decades--which have
reduced the past need for additional government borrowing
from the public--and resulted in a public debt that is less
today than what it otherwise would have been.
Older Americans truly understand that budgets matter and
that we all need to live within our means. But they also
understand that budgets impact real people; and they
certainly understand the difference between programs to which
they have made a contribution and earned over the course of a
lifetime of work, and those they have not. From surveys,
letters, e-mails, town hall meetings, and numerous other
interactions, we know older Americans of all political
affiliations reject cuts to Social Security and
[[Page H7867]]
Medicare to balance the budget. We therefore oppose the
adoption of a balanced budget amendment that puts Social
Security and Medicare at risk, and on behalf of our millions
of members and all older Americans, we urge you to vote
against H. J. Res. 2.
If you have any questions, feel free to call me, or please
have your staff contact Cristina Martin Firvida of our
Government Affairs office at 202-434-6194.
Sincerely,
Nancy LeaMond,
Executive Vice President.
{time} 1320
Mr. NADLER. I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. We do not need a constitutional amendment. We need a
supercommittee congressional agreement now.
To the Republicans: do it now. Call President Obama now. Tell him tax
breaks for the billionaires, on the table. Tell him defense spending,
on the table. Tell him tax breaks for oil companies, on the table. The
President says he'll put the social programs on the table.
You don't have to go back 200 years to amend the Constitution. You
just have to next week, next Wednesday say, We want to do it now. We,
who are here, will do it now. We will balance the budget by putting all
of our programs on the table.
Do it now. Do it now, Republicans. Don't pretend and hide behind a
constitutional amendment when you can do it now. You can be the
Founding Fathers of a balanced budget in 2011.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Noting that the Republicans on the supercommittee have
put a proposal on the table and the Democrats have not, I now yield
1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), a member
of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, there are over 10,000 Federal programs
and counting. No one quite knows how many there are.
I do most of my work in Congress on manufacturing; and for 12 years,
I've been working on a chart to identify every agency, every bureau
that is involved somehow in manufacturing. And it continues to grow and
grow and grow. And my objective was to find a way with a common portal
to be able to access via the Internet exactly what's going on, but it's
impossible. And that's the problem with this government. People run to
Congress and say, I have got a program for this and for that.
Well, you know what, it's time to start eliminating programs around
here. It's time to just keep those programs that are absolutely
necessary, and the best way to do that is to have the fiscal restraint
imposed by a balanced budget amendment. No longer is it a matter of
going to the backroom and simply printing money to cover this program
or that program. We need to come to the realization that Washington
doesn't have the answer for everything. And the best way to cut back on
these 10,000 programs is to have the discipline of a balanced budget
amendment so that the Members of the House and Members of the Senate
can realize you really can't spend more than what you take in.
Mr. NADLER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 4 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from New York has 2\3/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield
1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), a member of
the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. WOMACK. Today is payday. It's Friday. For a lot of people, it's
payday. They're going to get a check from their employer, if they're
lucky enough to have a job. And I'm for sure for most of them, before
ever cashing that check, they know exactly where it's going. These
people have likely already come to the realization that there are a lot
more needs, a lot more things they would like to have or do, but
there's just so much money.
I find it incredible that my friends on the other side of the aisle
believe this Federal Government should not have to go through the same
process of discerning between what they want and what they need and
what they can afford, like the rest of America. In the 10-plus months I
have been here, I consider this vote the most important vote I will
have cast because it's the vote that has the most impact on the future
of my grandson.
It is sad that Congress does not have the discipline to live within
its means, and I strongly believe the only way to constrain an
undisciplined Congress is to enshrine its obligation in the
Constitution. An overwhelming majority of Americans believe that the
balanced budget amendment, as proposed today, is the right way forward
for America.
I thank my friend from Virginia for his leadership on the issue, and
I urge its passage.
Mr. NADLER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney), a member of the House
Budget Committee.
Mr. MULVANEY. Madam Speaker, I have enjoyed sitting here listening to
the arguments against this amendment. They range from the bizarre to
the completely incredible. We've heard it's not 1985. I wish it were
and that the deficit were only $5 trillion. Imagine what the world
would have been like if we could have accomplished this 15 years ago.
I have heard that we don't need this amendment to do our job against
the backdrop of only being able to do it four times in the last 50
years. That argument simply does not pass the laugh test. I heard just
a few moments ago from the honorable minority leader that this was not
the right time to pass this amendment because somehow this body was too
partisan, too partisan to pass an amendment to the Constitution that
would take partisanship out of the equation and force us to balance the
budget. These are all extraordinarily weak arguments, Madam Speaker,
and they are weak because they do not go to the heart of the matter of
why you would be against this amendment.
There's only one reason to be against this amendment. The only true
argument against this amendment is that you want to continue to spend
money that we don't have, and there are people in this Chamber who
believe that is the way that they keep their jobs, that if we continue
to run up debt, that if we continue to spend money that we don't have,
that somehow back in their district it will encourage their voters to
send them back to this Chamber.
Madam Speaker, I believe there are more important things than our
jobs. There are more important things than simply remaining a Member of
Congress. More so than any amendment, any bill that we will take up
this year, this amendment is the opportunity that we have to send a
message to the people back home that we are willing to do what is
right, that we're willing to stand up for them and to give them the
opportunity to change the Constitution of the United States in a way
that they see fit.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I would advise my colleague that I have
only one speaker remaining.
Mr. NADLER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, since 1995, when this amendment was last on the floor,
we proved we could balance the budget without a balanced budget
amendment. But a balanced budget is not the highest goal. The highest
goal is prosperity, a full employment economy; and that requires a
balanced budget over the business cycle. It requires that in good times
we have a surplus and pay down the deficit. But then in recessions, you
should have a deficit to spur the economy; you should spend money to
spur the economy to get out of the recession. To try to balance the
budget by cutting spending during a recession is to increase
unemployment, is to guarantee that every recession becomes a
depression. Just look at what's happening in Germany, which was in
pretty good shape until they elected a government that enacted
austerity to try to balance the budget. Their economy is tanking. The
same thing in Great Britain.
The second point I want to make is that when we talk about balanced
budgets in the States, they have a separate budget for operating
expenses and for capital budgets. Here, this balanced budget amendment
would say we should never borrow money for anything; the Federal
Government should never borrow money. That's insanity economically. It
means we have no
[[Page H7868]]
money for our bridges, roads, highways, et cetera.
Third, this amendment would say if we couldn't reach agreement, if we
didn't pass the balanced budget, the courts would have to decide
whether to increase taxes and, if so, which taxes, or cut programs, and
in such a case, which programs. We should not be giving the courts the
power to make such decisions.
Finally, Social Security, Medicare, these are not debts. They're
obligations of the Federal Government. A balanced budget amendment
would put them at risk. We would have to cut Social Security, cut
Medicare, cut all these things if we passed a balanced budget
amendment. And if we're unwilling, as our colleagues on the other side
are, raise taxes on the rich. The fact is taxes on the rich are much
less than they've ever been, which is the basic cause of the deficits
that we're running now.
The balanced budget amendment would not balance the budget. You would
still have a stalemate between Republicans, who want no taxes on the
rich and want draconian cuts on lower- and middle-income programs, and
those on our side of the aisle who disagree on them. If you can't reach
agreement on those things now in the supercommittee, what makes you
think you would reach agreement just because you had a requirement on
the books that said you should? It would end up in court.
{time} 1330
The balanced budget amendment is simply a sop to be able to say we
are doing something about a balanced budget when we are, in fact,
unwilling to make the tough decisions that could, in fact, balance the
budget. We showed, during the Clinton administration, that those
decisions could be made. And if we really want to balance the budget,
we have to undo most of the Bush tax cuts, we have to stop voting for
wars that we don't pay for, and we have to really balance the budget,
not pass an amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The gentleman from New York and I agree on one thing: Prosperity is
the goal. And this is not a pathway to prosperity. Fifty years with six
balanced budgets is a pathway that has led to a $15 trillion debt that
we have right now. That's not prosperity. The largest debtor nation on
Earth is not prosperity. $50,000 per American citizen in debt is not
prosperity. And the $60 trillion in future obligations that we have
yielding this result is definitely not prosperity for our children and
grandchildren.
That is why we need the discipline that a balanced budget amendment
to the Constitution provides. That is why this is a bipartisan vote.
That is why dozens of Democrats will join us today in enshrining in our
Constitution something that will require that future Congresses balance
the budget.
I urge my colleagues to join us in this matter, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would ask Members not to traffic
the well when another Member is under recognition.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, Democrats remain committed to
responsibly putting the budget on a fiscally sustainable path through a
balanced approach that includes both spending and revenue. But the
Republican Constitutional amendment defeated on the House floor today
was not the answer. It could have dire consequences for the economy, on
needed services to seniors and others, and on the government's ability
to quickly and appropriately respond to changing needs.
This Constitutional amendment would have made it easier to cut Social
Security or Medicare than to cut corporate tax loopholes or eliminate
tax breaks for millionaires. It required a roll call vote by the
majority of the whole number of each House--218 votes in the House
regardless of how many Members are absent--to raise revenue, but
allowed spending cuts with a simple majority vote of those present. Why
should there be a different standard for cutting Social Security
benefits than for cutting even a dime of special interest tax breaks?
The disparity clearly highlighted that this Amendment was not
actually about balancing the budget, but rather about establishing a
constitutionally mandated path to impose the Republican budget
priorities. In fact, the Amendment would have required even deeper cuts
than the House Republican budget resolution, which never reached
balance. The Republican budget ran $1.6 trillion in deficits from 2018
through 2021, when this Amendment could have been in effect.
This Constitutional amendment would have jeopardized Social Security
and Medicare benefits, veterans' benefits, and all other guarantees to
our citizens by limiting annual spending to that year's receipts.
Regardless of whether the country has brought in receipts over many
years, saving to cover upcoming obligations--and regardless of the
retirement guarantee made to our seniors who contributed to the Social
Security trust fund throughout their working years--this Amendment
would not have let us make those payments unless we had an equal amount
of receipts coming in that year.
The Constitutional amendment also would have deprived Congress of the
flexibility to address national needs and economic emergencies by
limiting spending to the level of that year's receipts. For example,
during a recession the Amendment would have required spending cuts or
tax increases at the very time the country required additional spending
or tax cuts to provide needed help and to boost the economy. Even in
the face of a natural disaster there was no emergency exemption to
allow immediate extra assistance.
This year has illustrated the economic consequences of risking
default on the nation's obligations, yet the Constitutional amendment
would have made default more likely by increasing the difficulty of
raising the debt limit by requiring a 3/5th supermajority vote. In
fact, the need to raise the debt ceiling has no correlation to whether
future budgets are balanced; increases in the debt ceiling reflect past
decisions on fiscal policy.
Some have argued that this Amendment would have put the federal
government in the same position as state governments and households,
which balance their budgets. And while many states are required to
balance their operating budgets, they still can and do borrow for
capital projects. Likewise, families regularly do not balance their
budgets on an annual basis; a 30-year home mortgage or a student loan
are both examples of ways families can responsibly take on debt and pay
it back over time. By requiring the federal government to balance
spending and receipts each year--regardless of the country's economic
circumstance or the need for immediate resources--the Amendment would
have prohibited the nation from making necessary investments.
This Constitutional amendment was not a responsible budget plan. It
did not make any of the hard choices necessary to fix our fiscal and
economic crisis. Instead, it would have enshrined in the Constitution a
fixed budgetary goal without providing guidance on how to reach it or
how to enforce it. The Amendment could send budget decisions to the
courts, tying up federal budgeting and transferring the power to make
the laws from Congress to the federal judiciary. If cases were filed
arguing that the budget is not balanced, court involvement could lead
to shutting down all federal operations--even emergency services.
The Constitution provides broad guarantees for citizens, but is not
designed to implement particular policies. Congress must confront the
difficult choices before it. Passing the Amendment may make for good
theater, but it is simply a device for pretending we are doing
something while ducking difficult choices. Instead, we are working hard
now to responsibly put the budget on a sustainable path, and that is
the right thing to do.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, the right question to ask is not, ``How can
Congress create the political will necessary to balance our budget?''
The right questions to ask are, ``What is the right budget to enable a
vigorous economy?'' And that is not necessarily a budget in exact
numerical equality between income and outgo. And, second, ``How has
America balanced its budget in the past?''
Madam Speaker, I took great personal satisfaction during my first
term as a member of this body in voting for and helping to achieve
America's first balanced budget in a generation. It was not easy to
attain. Those members of Congress, myself included, who believe in
fiscal responsibility and budgetary discipline, had to make tough
choices and cast difficult votes in order to put the federal
government's fiscal house in order. The White House and Congress can
balance the federal budget without a constitutional amendment.
We needed two things: sufficient income and no unnecessary spending.
A revenue base made balancing the budget possible. We also had a
recognition that a vibrant economy produces more revenue than an
economy in a recession.
That, Madam Speaker, is what is lacking today--not the political
will, but the economic fundamentals. America's revenue base was
decimated by the Bush tax cuts, which gave away hundreds of billions of
dollars to the most fortunate Americans while doing little to
[[Page H7869]]
help middle-class families. And America's economy has been devastated
by the financial crisis, which has diminished the federal government's
revenue base and required us to spend money to sustain the social
safety net and to create jobs.
Madam Speaker, if America truly wants to return to the era of
balanced budgets, we don't need a misguided and destructive
constitutional amendment. What America needs is to invest in those
things that allow and help our people to be productive--education,
research, health care, and things that help the wheels of commerce
turn, like banking and trading regulations, environmental protection,
and freer migration of talented people. We need the wealthiest
Americans and our wealthiest corporations to pay their fair share of
the cost of running this nation. And we need to act with urgency and
compassion to put to work the 25 million Americans who are out of work
or underemployed. We need to create jobs in the short-term to stop the
damage to our long-term economy.
Madam Speaker, our history of amending the Constitution has been
about the enhancement of individual rights or the correction of
fundamental structural flaws in the federal government. Politics--not a
structural flaw--created our current deficit problem, and political
compromise can fix it. We must be committed to reaching the political
compromises that are necessary in order to exercise fiscal
responsibility and balance budgets consistently.
Madam Speaker, a balanced budget amendment is nothing more than a
fine example of political theater. We will debate this amendment for
hours, but without any chance to amend it or consider any alternatives.
The majority is putting the bill on the floor under a procedure
normally reserved for non-controversial measures, despite the very
controversial nature of this flawed constitutional amendment. It is bad
policy that will not bring us any closer to solving our budget
problems, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it here today.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this
Balanced Budget Amendment.
I have always been hesitant to support changes to our Constitution.
It is the most significant document in our Nation's history and I am
reminded of its guiding principals by the copy I carry with me each
day.
Truthfully, I wish this step had not become so necessary. A simple
majority of us in the House, working with the Senate and the President
have the ability to balance our budget without this Amendment.
It has been done before. I have been honored to serve in this House
for the last 41 years. During this time, we have managed to balance our
budget twice, and both times occurred during my tenure as Chairman of
the House Appropriations Committee.
The way we balanced the budget then was by making the hard, but
necessary choices. The Appropriations Committee had to say no to many
funding requests. It was not always easy and I was not always the most
popular person around here. But we had to do the right thing for the
country and we did it as a Republican House working with a Democrat
President.
In this Congress, the House and the House Appropriations Committee
have made the difficult decisions to cut wasteful spending, consolidate
duplicative programs, and reign in the excesses of recent years. We
have reduced excessive spending and passed a responsible budget
resolution. We have brought our bills to the floor under regular
order--in contrast to recent years. Every Member on the Committee and
in the entire House has had the opportunity to make their voices heard
and offer their amendments. In fact, we have considered almost 500
amendments to appropriations bills just this year.
I am proud to say that the House has made real progress towards
fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, much of our budget process has
become dysfunctional.
We are stuck with a Senate that has been unwilling to do their part.
It has been more than two and a half years since they have completed
the basic task of passing a budget.
Under this President, spending has skyrocketed to consume more than
25 percent of the economy. Since 2008, annual spending has jumped by
close to $1 trillion. The President's budget proposed to keep the
spending going for the next decade, with spending growing from its
historical average of 18 percent to 24 percent of GDP in 2021.
We have mandatory spending that is spiraling out of control.
For the first time in America's proud history, our credit rating was
downgraded because we have been unable to come to an enforceable
agreement on how to bring our debt under control.
I have come to believe that the only guaranteed way to bring spending
under control is to pass this Balanced Budget Amendment. The only way
to get the entire Congress and the President to consistently agree on a
fiscally responsible budget is to amend the Constitution to require it
to happen. It is a common sense proposal that has widespread support.
In 2009, I asked every voter in my district how they felt about
requiring a balanced budget and 79.64 percent of the more than 32,000
who responded to my survey said that they support it.
The National Federation of Independent Businesses recently asked
small business owners in my district if they support the Balanced
Budget Amendment and 78 percent responded that they do.
National polls point to more overwhelming support. After all,
families and small businesses across the country have to sit down and
balance their own budgets, just as our state of Florida must. Why can't
the federal government do the same?
America has a spending problem. Just on Wednesday our national debt
topped $15 trillion. We are borrowing 43 cents for every dollar we
spend. This year gross interest payments on the debt reached $466
billion. Every one of our children and our grandchildren already owes
more than $46,000 to our creditors.
We owe it to the next generation to leave them a better country and a
better future, as those who came before us did. It is essential that we
change the culture of spending in Washington and restore fiscal sanity
to our federal budget. It is crucial to the future of our Nation that
we solve this debt problem, because if we don't, I hate to think what
might happen to our economy, what might happen to our currency, and
what might happen to our standing in the world.
Let me close by saying that to have a strong national defense we must
have a strong robust economy.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, it would be a mistake to believe that
a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution will solve all of our
fiscal woes. There are no magic answers to what ails us. Fiscal
discipline and common sense applied day-by-day, year-by-year are
required.
A Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution would, however, help
impose the discipline needed on the taxing and spending decisions of
the federal government. It would be a very significant step--perhaps
one of the most significant we could take--in repairing our fiscal
house.
It forces Congress and the President to make choices. If new spending
is proposed, other spending must be cut or some other way to finance
the new program must be found.
A basic principle for individuals, businesses, and other
organizations is that one should not spend more than one has to spend,
except in extraordinary circumstances. That is common sense. Yet, for
too long, that principle has been commonly absent from Washington. This
vote on this Amendment is our opportunity to apply this basic idea to
the federal government. We should do it now.
Mr. POSEY. Madam Speaker, nearly every State in the union is required
to balance its budget each year, including my home State of Florida.
Our counties, cities, school boards and special districts are all
required to make financially responsible decisions with the hard-earned
tax dollars of Florida's working families and small businesses.
It is long past due for Washington to do the same, which is why the
Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is one of the first
bills I cosponsored as a new Member of Congress in 2009.
For 235 years, the United States has been the greatest economic
success story the world has ever known. Yet, the most significant
threat ever to our continued success is our unprecedented and rapidly
growing national debt. From 1776 to 2008, Washington accumulated a debt
of $10.6 trillion. Yet in just the last 3 years alone, another $4.4
trillion in debt has been added for a grand total of $15 trillion and
counting.
Washington doesn't just have a spending problem. It has an insatiable
addiction to spending money it does not have and it is threatening our
children's future. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff called it
the greatest threat to our Nation.
The last time the House voted on and passed a Balanced Budget
Amendment to the Constitution--back in 1997--the national debt stood at
$5.4 trillion. That year the Balanced Budget Amendment fell just ONE
VOTE short of passage in the Senate. It's something I like to call
``The Ten Trillion Dollar Vote.''
So, you might ask: How do these gigantic numbers relate to the
American taxpayer? Because of Washington's failure to control spending,
each and every taxpayer's share of the debt amounts to $130,000. It
gets worse. On our current path, the non-partisan Congressional Budget
Office estimates the national debt will reach $23 TRILLION in 2015.
That's $200,000 in debt per taxpayer. This must change.
The American people were promised in 1997 that Washington would
balance the
[[Page H7870]]
budget without a Balanced Budget Amendment. Given what we now know,
it's ridiculous to believe that Washington will balance the budget and
begin paying down the debt without the requirement of a Balanced Budget
Amendment.
Future generations of Americans deserve to live with the same
opportunities we have had. Burdening them with this unprecedented debt
load is immoral and unthinkable. Only by passing a Balanced Budget
Amendment can we eliminate their greatest threat to success and
guarantee them the same opportunities that we have had.
I urge my colleagues to support the Balanced Budget Amendment and set
our Nation on a more financially responsible and stable course.
Mr. WOLFE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support H.J. Res. 2, which
is a common sense, balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
I am proud to join my friend from the Shenandoah Valley, Bob Goodlatte,
as a cosponsor of his legislation and I thank him for his work in
bringing it to the floor for a vote.
I have long supported this legislation because I believe Washington
must live within its limits when spending the hard earned money of the
American taxpayers. This balanced budget amendment is one of the
necessary steps we must take in order to address our Nation's crushing
fiscal obligations. That is why I have consistently voted for a
balanced budget amendment every time it has come before the House--in
1982, 1990, 1992, 1994 and 1995.
The national debt is over $15 trillion, annual deficits are over $1
trillion and we are looking at unfunded obligations and liabilities of
$62 trillion. I am concerned that if we don't deal with this crushing
burden now it could lead to another downgrade of our Nation's credit
rating. This could make credit, from car loans to mortgage loans to
college loans, more difficult and expensive to obtain. Everything must
be on the table for consideration--all entitlement spending, all
domestic discretionary spending, including defense spending, and tax
policy--particularly reforms to make the tax code simpler and fairer
and free from special interest earmarks.
That is why I have supported every serious effort to resolve this
crisis: the Bowles-Simpson recommendations, the ``Gang of Six'' effort,
the ``Cut, Cap and Balance'' bill, and the Budget Control Act. None of
these solutions were perfect, but they all took the steps necessary to
rebuild and protect our economy. I also joined a bipartisan group of
102 of my colleagues in sending the enclosed letter to the Joint Select
Committee on Deficit Reduction to ``go big'' and identify $4 trillion
in savings through spending cuts and tax reform in its proposal due
later this month.
A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is but one tool to
get our fiscal house in order. This balanced budget amendment would
establish critical institutional reforms that would ensure that the
Federal Government lives within its means. We must reduce the deficit
and pay down the debt to ensure that we have the ability to support the
critical programs that citizens expect the government to provide.
In his Farewell Address, George Washington instructed the Congress to
use the public credit as sparingly as possible. We should heed his wise
words and pass this balanced budget amendment.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong
support of H.J. Res. 2, which would require the Federal Government to
do what American families do every day--balance our budget.
One of the first votes I cast in Congress was in support of the
Balanced Budget Amendment. That was in 1995 when the Federal deficit
was $4.9 trillion--a level that I considered unacceptable to pass on to
our children and grandchildren. And we came so close, Madam Speaker.
The Balanced Budget Amendment passed by a two-thirds majority in the
House.
This included 72 Democrats. Many of my colleagues from the other side
of the aisle that I see here today stood with us to do what is best for
the future of our country.
We came just one vote shy of passing it in the Senate, and have paid
for this failure every day since, Madam Speaker. It has been 16 years
and over 10 trillion dollars more in debt since I voted for the
Balanced Budget Amendment.
The Federal deficit was unacceptable then, and it is unconscionable
today--growing an incredible $1.6 billion per day.
This has led us to where we are today--facing a $15 trillion dollar
debt that leaves future generations in even greater jeopardy and is
causing serious harm to our economy.
Former Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen recently said that
the greatest threat to our country is not Al-Qaeda--it is our national
debt.
It is threatening our economy, our standard of living, and our very
way of life.
Madam Speaker, just think of how different our country would be if we
had succeeded in 1995.
It seems like such a simple concept--only spending as much as we take
in.
This is our chance to make history. Let's not force future
generations to look back and see how Congress once again failed to
change the course of American history and get our economy back on
track.
As a grandfather, Madam Speaker, I strongly urge all of my
colleagues, regardless of political affiliation, to stand up for the
future of our country and join me in voting for this vital resolution.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in
opposition of the proposed Balanced-Budget Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
The constitutional balanced budget amendment we are debating this
week could force Congress to indiscriminately cut all programs by an
average of 17.3 percent by 2018. According to the Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities, if revenues are not raised and all programs are cut
by the same percentage, Social Security would be cut $184 billion in
2018 alone and almost $1.2 trillion through 2021; Medicare would be cut
$117 billion in 2018 and about $750 billion through 2021; and Medicaid
and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) would be cut $80
billion in 2018 and about $500 billion through 2021.
I am also concerned the measure adds arbitrary caps on Federal
spending that achieves nothing but to cripple this government's ability
to jumpstart the economy, make the important investments to secure our
future, and ultimately put Americans back to work.
That is why I, along with leading economists and Nobel laureates in
economics, strongly oppose this radical and debilitating method for
addressing our budget woes.
My republican colleagues have already had countless opportunities in
this Congress to work with us to develop a tangible plan to reduce the
deficit and fix this economy. In fact, Republicans have voted seventeen
times against Democratic proposals or efforts to simply consider
proposals to create or protect American jobs.
Fervent calls for a balanced budget make for great political talking
points. However, it makes little to no practical sense to stymie this
government indefinitely in its ability to borrow reasonable amounts of
money to make smart investments in infrastructure, public services, and
education. Nobody in this Congress or across the country is claiming
that there is anything reasonable about borrowing fifteen trillion
dollars. However, what some of my colleagues and I are going even
further to say is that it is unreasonable to make severe cuts to vital
programs that benefit the majority of Americans at a time when this
type of investment is needed the most.
Even ignoring all of these points, a balanced-budget amendment would
not even take effect in time to address the budget problems that
Americans are experiencing today. In fact, if ratified by three-
quarters of the States, the amendment would not take effect until the
second fiscal year beginning after ratification, or the first fiscal
year beginning December 31, 2016, whichever is later.
The economic problems we are experiencing are a very real threat
today. Ignoring all of the fundamental problems with this amendment, it
does nothing to address the problems we are having today. Americans are
hurting today and we must do what we can today to address these
problems. The Balanced-Budget Amendment to our Constitution is not the
right solution.
This country is at a crossroad. I am not talking about finances or
the economy. I am talking about a fundamental crossroads in beliefs
that will affect generations after generations to come. This debate we
are having today goes well beyond the national debt. It is about the
fundamental beliefs whether or not we want government to provide the
vast amounts of public services we enjoy today or to rely on for-profit
private entities to provide those services to us on a for-profit basis.
This amendment would force us to shrink government to impractical
levels, paving the way for severely reduced public services, very
little oversight in the way private entities provide goods and
services, and free reign for businesses to operate with the sole
purpose in mind of making a profit.
Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose this Balanced-Budget Amendment that
is being considered by the House. I implore my colleagues to see reason
and oppose this measure that is before us today. It is a radical
measure that would prove catastrophic for this country for generations
to come.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I oppose this amendment to our
Constitution that purports to balance our nation's budget, but instead
serves merely as an excuse for Congress to avoid the real
responsibilities of governing. When the balanced budget amendment
freight train was moving through Congress in 1995 and a number of
people piled
[[Page H7871]]
on, it passed in the House overwhelmingly, but it failed in the Senate
by one vote. The only Republican who voted no was Senator Mark
Hatfield. As Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, he was visited
repeatedly by some of the most ardent proponents of a ``balanced
budget,'' asking him for special treatment so that they might spend
more money in their home states. Senator Hatfield recognized that, in
his words, a vote for a balanced budget amendment is, ``not a vote for
a balanced budget, it is a vote for a fig leaf.''
Amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget is an
irresponsible approach to fiscal discipline. It does not balance the
budget; instead, it would restrict the government's ability to provide
for the common welfare, to respond to economic crises and natural
disasters, and to invest in America. Under a balanced budget amendment,
recessions would be longer and deeper because Congress would be forced
to raise taxes, cut spending, or both in order to meet the
constitutional mandate. This flies in the face of sound economic
policy. If the balanced budget amendment were in effect today, it would
throw 15 million more people out of work, double the unemployment rate,
and slash our economy by 17 percent.
It would also require devastating cuts to critical programs like
Social Security, Medicare, and veteran's benefits. No program would be
spared: education, job training, natural resources, environmental and
financial protection, and transportation would all suffer under
spending cuts. Yet a balanced budget amendment would do nothing for the
corporate tax loopholes and benefits for the wealthy that cost
taxpayers billions of dollars.
A balanced budget amendment limits the government's response to
natural disasters. This year alone, our country has experienced
flooding, tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes that have taken
hundreds of lives and caused billions of dollars in damage. Our
communities need immediate support to help those who are injured and
without a home, and to help clean up the devastation. A balanced budget
amendment would tie the government's hands by requiring the slow
machinery of Congress to act before relief could be given to suffering
families.
A popular argument in favor of a balanced budget amendment is that
families across the country must live within their means, and thus, so
should Congress. But few families paid cash for their home. And few
students paid cash for their college education. Families in Oregon
borrow money for important investments that will build their lifetime
wealth and improve the quality of their lives. Congress must be able to
make similar investments to rebuild and renew America--shoring up the
country's crumbling infrastructure, repairing our dilapidated schools,
and creating the energy resources that will drive the future of our
economy.
Balancing the budget does not require a constitutional amendment. It
requires courage and compromise.
After Senator Hatfield courageously voted no on the balanced budget
amendment in 1995, Congress in fact was able to move forward to rein in
spending and raise an appropriate level of revenue that balanced the
budget for four consecutive years. Unfortunately, when Republicans took
control of Congress and the Bush administration took power, restraint
was lost, our nation's wealth was given away, deficits skyrocketed, and
their tax cut and spending policies drive our deficit to this day.
A balanced budget amendment is a phony solution. Instead, members of
Congress must stand up and work together to provide a balance of
increased revenues and sensible spending cuts. Doing otherwise merely
avoids our responsibilities and is an insult to the people who sent us
to represent them in Congress.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I am unalterably opposed to this proposed
Constitutional amendment. President Obama stated it succinctly earlier
this year: ``We won't need a constitutional amendment to do our job.''
He is right. President Clinton and Congress enjoyed balanced budgets in
1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. The proponents of this deeply flawed and
highly dangerous tampering with our Constitution are dead wrong. All
that is needed is the responsible exercise of choices about our budget.
This proposed constitutional amendment fails on several counts:
First and foremost, the proposed amendment does not pass the truth in
labeling test. There is nothing in it that requires Congress, under any
and all conditions, to pass a balanced budget. Under the voting
procedures that are established, Congress can pass an unbalanced
budget.
Second, there is a dangerous tampering with the fundamental principle
of majority rule in the House of Representatives. Today, the majority
rules in votes on the budget. Under this proposed constitutional
amendment, it will require a three-fifths (60%) vote of the House to
pass a budget that is not in balance. The last thing the United States
House of Representatives needs is to become more like the United States
Senate in its rules for voting on legislation. We need coherence, not
paralysis. We elect a President with a majority of the Electoral
College. We should certainly be permitted to pass a budget through a
simple majority vote in the House of Representatives--just as we do
today. That's democracy. This proposed constitutional amendment is
undemocratic.
Third, this amendment, by requiring a three-fifths vote in the House
to approve any increase in the public debt limit, guarantees an annual
repeat of the debacle we experienced this summer. Our debt goes up--or
down--based on spending and tax decisions previously taken by Congress.
The debt that exists is simply an expression of spending and tax bills
already enacted into law. Increasing the public debt should therefore
be a simple, technical legislative act. By imposing a supermajority
requirement on any increase in the public debt, this guarantees that we
will face a recurring risk of default on the full faith and credit of
the United States. This summer, we saw fear spread in households across
America, and havoc in markets worldwide, out of grave concern over what
a default would mean. This amendment would cement such instability into
the Constitution itself. To perpetuate uncertainty over whether the
United States will default on its obligation is dangerous and
irresponsible.
Fourth, this so-called balance budget amendment is, at its heart, a
fraud. Section 7 of the proposed amendment provides that the budget is
deemed in balance when outlays match receipts--except for revenues
derived from borrowing and outlays of interest payments on the national
debt. In other words, carrying the national debt does not count. This
is not a balanced budget, as payment of the debt will require trillions
in spending on interest for decades to come. Even under the draconian
Republican budget plan adopted earlier this year by the House, the
budget, with all its harsh cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social
Security, would not approach being truly balanced until the 2030s or
later. The House Republicans may want the American people to think this
is a vote on a balanced budget constitutional amendment. What they are
not telling you up front is that the United States budget will be in
deficit for decades even if this becomes part of the Constitution. The
American people should not be fooled.
Fifth, this amendment will gravely injure our seniors, and those who
rely on Medicare and Medicaid. This amendment will require cuts at
least as harsh as those rammed through the House by the Republicans
earlier this year.
This will mean the end of Medicare as we know it, and it will be
devastating for Medicare beneficiaries. The Congressional Budget Office
concluded that the Republican budget, by privatizing Medicare, will
more than double beneficiary costs for new enrollees. The average
senior will face increased costs of over $6,000 annually when the
program begins. And all of that extra spending by seniors and people
with disabilities will go to private health insurance plans. The
transfer of seniors into private plans will raise costs by over $11,000
per beneficiary by 2030. To add insult to injury, the Republican budget
reopens the donut hole under the Part D prescription drug benefit,
increasing the burden on seniors within 5 years.
For Medicaid, the Republican budget approved by the House was even
worse. Medicaid accounts for 43% of total long term care spending in
the U.S. But the Republican budget cuts Medicaid in half by 2022, and
turns it into a block grant for the states. Moreover, by cutting
reimbursement rates, Medicaid will lose health providers. At least 18
million people will be cut off from access to Medicaid. There will be a
loss of quality and staffing in nursing homes--which means job losses
in the health professions--as well as cuts to programs that provide in-
home services to keep seniors independent.
There are other deep flaws in this proposal. The amendment puts our
ability to respond to national crisis in a straightjacket. Section 5 of
the proposed amendment permits an absolute majority of the House to
vote to waive the balanced budget requirement if we are at war. But if
we face an economic emergency--like we do today--the balanced budget
requirement can only be waived by a three-fifths vote of the House. The
economic crisis we face today is at least as significant as the Iraq
war--but this amendment would make it harder to respond to recession
and unemployment.
Also troubling is the prospect that the courts will become involved
in budgets passed by Congress. By placing the budget under a specific
constitutional amendment, it is likely that the courts could be asked
to rule on whether a budget, as passed, complies with the requirements
of the constitutional amendment. Is it really balanced? If this
amendment is passed, we head down a dangerous legal road.
[[Page H7872]]
Madam Speaker, this week, 273 organizations representing health,
welfare, labor, public advocacy and community groups across the Nation,
have written to the Congress to insist that we reject this balanced
budget constitutional amendment. Their letter states:
A balanced budget constitutional amendment would damage the
economy, not strengthen it. Demanding that policymakers cut
spending and/or raise taxes, even when the economy slows, is
the opposite of what is needed to stabilize a weak economy
and avert recessions. Such steps would risk tipping a
faltering economy into recession or worsening an ongoing
downturn, costing large numbers of jobs while blocking worthy
investments to stimulate jobs and growth and address the
nation's urgent needs in infrastructure and other areas . . .
A balanced budget amendment has no place in the
Constitution of the United States. Our Constitution has
served the nation well because it represents enduring
principles that are the foundations of our government. It
should not be used as a substitute for real leadership on
fiscal policy.
We do not need a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. We
do not need to turn the House into the Senate. We do not need to impose
inhumane cuts on the most vulnerable in our society. And we do not need
to ruin the fabric of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
H.J. Res. 2, which proposes a Balanced Budget Amendment to the
Constitution. It's time to tighten the nation's purse strings and keep
Washington from spending more than we can afford.
For too long Congress and the President, on a bipartisan basis, have
let down the American people in our unwillingness and inability to be
responsible with our nation's finances. We have spent too much,
borrowed too much, and have failed to face the fact that we can no
longer continue to spend money that we do not have. A Balanced Budget
Amendment to the Constitution would legally force our government to
live within its means. It's interesting to see that while many of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, including our President,
have argued that a constitutional amendment is not necessary, 49 states
currently abide by some form of a balanced budget requirement.
President Obama urged opposition to this legislation, clearly showing
how out of touch he is. He just doesn't seem to get it. Americans
overwhelmingly support a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution
because their government has proven that it is unable to be responsible
with their money. The arguments against a Balanced Budget Amendment
appear to rest on the concerns that this will finally stop out-of-
control spending; meaning Congress will no longer be able to spend at
will on programs that may be nice to have, but are unnecessary or
unaffordable.
The measure on the floor today is a good compromise between those who
wanted a stronger Balanced Budget Amendment, and those who felt such
proposals went too far. While I would have preferred the version that
placed greater restriction on Congress's ability to tax and spend, I am
pleased to support his legislation.
It is simply unfair to continue to pass our financial burdens along
to our children and grandchildren. Given Congress's history of not
being responsible with the American people's hard earned money, it is
time we put in place these limitations on spending. A Balanced Budget
Amendment would finally force us to make tough decisions about how we
spend our money. This is not a silver bullet; however, it is an
important step in controlling spending and restoring confidence among
the American people. I strongly support passage of this important
legislation, and urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition
to H.J. Res. 2--the Balanced Budget Amendment.
We do need to responsibly reduce our budget deficits and debt, but
the best way to do that is by investing, building and growing our
economy--or through balanced economic growth--not a Balanced Budget
Amendment.
What is the most important question to be raised with respect to the
BBA?
We have serious gaps in our society that need to be narrowed:
Economic gaps between the rich and the poor--ask the 99%; social gaps
between racial minorities and the majority population; gender gaps--
women earn 76 cents of what men earn; generational gaps--will Social
Security be there for the next generation?; and infrastructure gaps--
upgrades to roads, bridges, ports, levees, water and sewer systems,
high speed rail, airports and more in order to remain competitive in
the world marketplace.
So the most important question is this: How does the BBA narrow these
economic, social, gender, generational and infrastructure gaps? It
won't! It will exacerbate them!
The BBA will permanently establish the United States as a ``separate
and unequal'' society!
The BBA will balance the federal budget on the backs of the poor, the
working class and the middle class.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and Citizens for Tax
Justice says the BBA would: Damage our economy by making recessions
deeper and frequent; heighten the risk of default and jeopardize the
full faith and credit of the U.S. Government; lead to reductions in
needed investments for the future; favor wealthy Americans over middle-
and low-income Americans by making it far more difficult to raise
revenues and easier to cut programs; and weaken the principle of
majority rule.
Before we affirm a BBA, we need to consider our future--not just the
future of America's debt, but America's future. Do we want a future
that is bright with promise? A future with innovation? A future with
the best schools, the brightest students, and the strongest and
healthiest workers? Do we want to continue to lead the world?
My answer is ``yes.''
Madam Speaker, I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on
this irresponsible and short-sighted amendment.
Mr. HONDA. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Joint
Resolution 2, the ``Balanced Budget'' Constitutional Amendment. This
misguided proposal would harm our economic recovery by destroying jobs,
cutting Medicare and Social Security, and increasing the likelihood
that the United States will default on its debt.
With the nation struggling to recover from the economic crisis, the
American people want Congress to focus on addressing the root causes of
our country's economic hardships, not passing pointless message pieces
to satisfy the Republican base that fail to get Americans back to work.
In fact, if we amend our Constitution in the way that H.J. Res. 2
proposes, it will wreak havoc on our economy. If enacted in Fiscal Year
2012, this Balanced Budget Amendment would cost 15 million people their
jobs, double our unemployment rate to 18%, and cause our economy to
shrink by 17%. As Bruce Bartlett, former advisor to President Ronald
Reagan, correctly points out, rapidly cutting spending to balance our
budget would throw our country into a recession.
This Balanced Budget Amendment would harm our middle class, seniors,
and veterans at a time when they are most vulnerable. This amendment
could force Congress to cut all programs by 17% by 2018. Furthermore,
it would cut Social Security by $1.2 trillion, Medicare by $750
billion, and veterans' benefits by $85 billion through 2021.
Proponents are suggesting this is a simple balanced budget amendment,
but it is not. Instead, H.J. Res. 2 would enshrine in our Constitution
a requirement that Congress would need a three-fifths supermajority
vote to raise the debt ceiling. This would make permanent the
dysfunction we witnessed this summer, which created chaos in our
financial markets and nearly unleashed a catastrophic default, and
raise the likelihood that our country would default on its debts.
Madam Speaker, this Constitutional Amendment is not only bad for our
country, but it is entirely unnecessary. If we want to balance our
budget, we should instead allow the Bush Tax Cuts sunset, and bring our
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to an end. This would cut $5 trillion in
spending and leave our country on sounder financial footing without
harming our economic growth and our most vulnerable citizens.
This Balanced Budget Amendment would put the federal government under
far tighter constraints than States and families operate under every
day, and it would open the door to federal courts making the budget
decisions that should be made by our elected officials. Our nation
needs real legislation that will create jobs and stimulate growth, not
a Constitutional Amendment that will cut jobs, kill growth, all in the
name of balancing the budget. Our budget problems can instead be
resolved in a responsible manner, but this amendment is not it. I urge
my colleagues to reject H.J. Res. 2.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, earlier this week the federal budget
eclipsed 15 trillion dollars. The passing of this milestone underscores
the real, substantive need to address our ballooning debt crisis. It is
past time for Congress to take action and put this nation on a path to
fiscal responsibility. That is why today I will vote in favor of a
balanced budget amendment to the United States constitution.
Madam Speaker, this country has a spending problem and a balanced
budget amendment is the only permanent fix to ensure that we stop
burdening our children and grandchildren with a debt they cannot
afford. Last year alone, the United States ran a 1.3 trillion dollar
budget deficit. That means we spent 1.3 trillion dollars that we do not
have. Under this balanced budget amendment, Congress would be forced to
live within its means and balance our checkbook, just like millions of
Americans
[[Page H7873]]
across this country. I urge my colleagues to help ensure that America's
best days lie in its future and join me in passing this balanced budget
amendment.
____
Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 2, the
Balanced Budget Amendment. This amendment is just another opportunity
for the House Majority to pander to their right wing base instead of
focusing on the issue that ordinary families care about--jobs.
The families in my district are concerned about their next paycheck
and how they will make that next mortgage or rent payment. Unemployment
is unacceptably high, and in California it's even higher than the
national average. There are five applicants for every available job.
Unemployment benefits are set to expire at the end of the year for
305,000 people in my state, and millions nationwide. Our highest
priority should be creating jobs and helping those who need help
staying afloat while they search for work.
Instead of creating jobs the Congress is voting on this reckless
amendment to the Constitution that would damage our shaky economy and
end Social Security and Medicare as we know them. This balanced budget
amendment would prevent the U.S. from responding to an economic crisis
or making the investments we need to repair our infrastructure. H.J.
Res. 2 is designed to guarantee that working families will bear the
burden of deficit reduction through steep cuts to vital programs,
instead of asking the wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes.
The balanced budget amendment is a distraction. The legislation has
no chance of getting 2/3 support in the House and Senate or the support
of 3/5 of the states, which is needed for ratification. We certainly
won't be seeing a balanced budget amendment added to our Constitution
anytime soon. This vote is typical for this Republican Congress. It is
no surprise that our approval rating is 9%. Since Republicans took
control of the House, the agenda has been dominated by symbolic votes
to wipe out environmental protections, eliminate states' abilities to
control guns, reaffirm our national motto which no one has threatened,
limit access to abortion, weaken social insurance programs, and
outsource American jobs.
There are plenty of good ideas to get our economy back on track. We
could extend unemployment insurance, create jobs by repairing our
infrastructure, and reform our tax code so the wealthy and Wall Street
are paying their fair share. This balanced budget amendment doesn't
impact our economy at all. Instead, it is a distraction from that work.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no.
____
Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of the amending the
Constitution to include a Balanced Budget Amendment requiring
government to live within its means.
This week, our national debt surpassed $15 trillion. Our nation faces
difficult economic times, a good part due to spending beyond our means.
Debt per household and for every American is at an unsustainable level
and jeopardizes our future. We can balance our budget. I helped and
voted for that responsible path which we achieved from 1996 to 2001.
We have today the opportunity to take an important step toward
reestablishing fiscal order to our nation. Congress must ensure that
the reckless spending and poor choices of today do not doom our
children and grandchildren to insurmountable indebtedness.
Having balanced our budgets in the past, and, while it will not be
easy, it can be done again. Families and businesses have made the tough
choices that are required. Government must now follow.
I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the passage of this
resolution and provide Americans the opportunity to vote on a Balanced
Budget Amendment. This is a decision not just for the House of
Representatives or Congress, but for the American people. History will
judge us today on how we have laid the foundation for the success of
future generations. I urge my colleagues to make the right choice.
____
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, today's debate over the balanced budget
amendment is highly instructive. It throws the differences between
those who believe in limited government and those who believe in an
ever-expanding federal government into sharp relief.
This debate brings to mind what American founder Alexander Hamilton
wrote in Federalist Paper 84.
He said that the Bill of Rights was ``. . . not only unnecessary in
the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.''
He thought that it ``would contain various exceptions to powers not
granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to
claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be
done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be
said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no
power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?''
He made a good point, but the Bill of Rights was adopted and has
served to secure many of the liberties we enjoy.
Even though he was somewhat wrong about the Bill of Rights, he was
correct in understanding the nature of power and government.
After all, if a power is implied, enthusiasts of big government are
bound to leverage the slightest constitutional hiccup into a new
``enumerated power.'' It appears that Hamilton understood very well the
tendency of some to rush to the federal government to solve problems,
create programs and expand in size and scope. In this sense, Hamilton
was correct; the specter of an expanded and powerful central government
is one that destroys and suppresses freedom.
That is why this debate over a balanced budget amendment is so
important, if only for the sharp contrasts it unveils between the
various parties to this crucial debate and the visions for limited
government and big government.
Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the
Balanced Budget Amendment. The purpose of Congress is to serve the
American people and this Amendment is an unforgiveable disservice to
our constituents. Let's look at the facts: the American people want
jobs. But this amendment would destroy some 15 million jobs, double
unemployment, and contract the economy by an estimated 17%. The
American people want security. But this amendment requires draconian
cuts to critical lifelines like Medicare, Social Security, and
veterans' benefits. The American people want a future for their
children. But this amendment blocks investments in education and
infrastructure, elevates the risk of federal default, and as Reagan's
Economic Advisor Bruce Bartlett said would unquestionably cause another
recession. But here's the one thing this Amendment would do for the
American people: reinforce their belief that Congress can't get
anything good done.
This legislative body is better than that. And it is better than this
amendment, which is nothing more than political theater. And at a time
of 9% unemployment and a contracted economy, there is no excuse to
waste taxpayer dollars on petty political gamesmanship.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and get
down to the serious legislative business of restoring order to our
fiscal house. I have joined with many of my Democratic colleagues in
fighting to stabilize the economy, create jobs, and build a better
future for our children and grandchildren. And I will not stop this
fight until we have rebuilt our economy so that the men and women of
America can get back to work.
Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H.J. Res. 2, the
Balanced Budget Amendment.
The Balanced Budget Amendment is now the only check on the last
decade Republican fiscal mismanagement. It is a practical solution to
the last decade of Republican irresponsible spending. Of course, the
easier response than going through the process of amending the U.S.
Constitution is reinstituting pay-as-you-go budgeting rules, which I
fully support. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues do not.
Pay-as-you-go budgeting led our country into the healthy economic
dynamic we saw in the 1990's under President Clinton. It, too, forced
us to make tough decisions about our spending, but led to four years of
budget surpluses, 27 million private sector jobs, and excess payments
on our national debt. Unfortunately, the Republicans squandered all of
that away as they recklessly cast aside fiscal discipline to enter two
wars, enact two large tax cuts, and increase entitlement spending, all
of which were not paid for. And all of which transformed our country
from one with a budget surplus to one with a $1.5 trillion budget
deficit in just eight short years.
I share my colleagues' concerns about the requirement for a
supermajority to raise the debt ceiling in light of the irresponsible
actions of House Republicans earlier this year when they nearly forced
the U.S. Government into default.
We must act with fiscal responsibility and attention to long-term
deficit reduction. And time is of the essence for the sake of economic
growth and job creation--now and for future generations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the joint resolution, H.J. Res. 2, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds not
being in the affirmative, the noes have it.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
[[Page H7874]]
minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 470.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 261,
nays 165, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 858]
YEAS--261
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--165
Ackerman
Amash
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--8
Bass (CA)
Deutch
Filner
Giffords
Napolitano
Nunes
Olver
Paul
{time} 1358
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. INSLEE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds not being in the affirmative) the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall 858, I was away from the
Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay.''
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I was absent during rollcall vote No.
858 in order to attend an important event in my district. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Motion to Suspend the Rules
and Pass, As Amended H.J. Res. 2--Proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States.
Ms. BASS of California. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 858 I was
unable to be present as I was in California attending a family funeral.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
____________________