[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 59 (Thursday, April 12, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H3162-H3192]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       PROPOSING A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 2

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds 
     of each House concurring therein), That the following article 
     is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as 
     part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 
     three-fourths of the several States within seven years after 
     the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

       ``Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not 
     exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-
     fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall 
     provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts 
     by a rollcall vote.
       ``Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States 
     held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-
     fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law 
     for such an increase by a rollcall vote.
       ``Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall 
     transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United 
     States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays 
     do not exceed total receipts.
       ``Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law 
     unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each 
     House by a rollcall vote.
       ``Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this 
     article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is 
     in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for 
     any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in 
     military conflict which causes an imminent and serious 
     military threat to national security and is so declared by a 
     joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number 
     of each House, which becomes law. Any such waiver must 
     identify and be limited to the specific excess or increase 
     for that fiscal year made necessary by the identified 
     military conflict.
       ``Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this 
     article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on 
     estimates of outlays and receipts.
       ``Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of 
     the United States Government except those derived from 
     borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the 
     United States Government except for those for repayment of 
     debt principal.
       ``Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with 
     the fifth fiscal year beginning after its ratification.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 2(a) of House Resolution 
811, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler) each will control 2 hours.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.

                              {time}  1230


                             General Leave

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous materials on H.J. Res. 2, currently under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  March 2, 1995, was a pivotal day in the history of our country. On 
that day, the United States Senate failed by one vote to send a 
balanced budget constitutional amendment to the States for 
ratification. The amendment had passed the House by the required two-
thirds majority, and the Senate vote was the last legislative hurdle 
before ratification by the States.
  If Congress had listened to the American people and sent that 
amendment to the States for ratification, we would not be facing the 
fiscal crisis we are today. Rather, balancing the Federal budget would 
have been the norm, instead of the exception, over the past 20 years, 
and we would have nothing like the annual deficits and skyrocketing 
debt we currently face.
  In 1995, when the balanced budget amendment came within one vote of 
passing, the gross Federal debt stood at $4.9 trillion. Today, it 
stands at over $20 trillion. The Federal debt held by the public is 
rising as well and is increasing rapidly as a percentage of the 
country's economic output. Unlike the past, when the debt spiked to pay 
for wars of finite duration and then was reduced gradually after 
hostilities ended, more recently, the debt has risen as a result of 
having to pay for entitlement programs that are of indefinite duration 
and difficult to reduce over time.
  As John Cogan of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University wrote: 
``All of the increase in Federal spending relative to GDP over the past 
seven decades is attributable to entitlement spending. Since the late 
1940s, entitlement claims on the Nation's output of goods and services 
have risen from less than 4 percent to 14 percent. Surprising as it may 
seem, the share of GDP that is spent on national defense and nondefense 
discretionary programs combined is no higher today than it was seven 
decades ago.''
  As the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has observed, such 
high and rising debt will have serious negative consequences. Interest 
rates will increase considerably, productivity and wages will be lower, 
and high debt increases the risk of a financial crisis.
  What is particularly troubling is that the debts we are incurring 
under entitlement programs will burden multiple future generations. 
Indeed, a few years ago, a cross-national study found that the United 
States ranked worst among 29 advanced countries in the degree to which 
it imposes unfair debt burdens on future generations.
  University of Virginia philosophy professor Loren Lomasky has written 
that theorists have devoted considerable attention to injustices 
committed across lines of race and gender. Far less attended are 
concerns of intergenerational fairness. That omission is serious. 
Measures that have done very well by the baby boomers are much less 
generous to their children and worse still for their grandchildren. The 
single greatest unsolved problem of justice in the developed world 
today is transgenerational plunder.
  It is time for Congress to stop saddling future generations with the 
burden of crushing debts to pay for current spending. We should not 
pass on to our children and grandchildren the bleak fiscal future that 
our unsustainable spending is creating.
  The only way to ensure that Congress acts with fiscal restraint over 
the longterm is to pass a balanced budget amendment. Experience has 
proved time and again that Congress cannot for any significant length 
of time rein in excessive spending. Annual deficits and the resulting 
debt continue to grow due to political pressures that the 
Constitution's structure no longer serves to restrain.
  In order for Congress to be able to consistently make the tough 
decisions necessary to sustain fiscal responsibility, Congress must 
have the external pressure of a balanced budget requirement to force it 
to do so. Constitutional principle will prevail where political 
promises have not.
  The Framers of the Constitution were familiar with the need for 
constitutional restrictions on deficit spending. When the Constitution 
was ratified, it was the States that had exhibited out-of-control 
fiscal mismanagement by issuing bills of credit to effectively print 
money to pay for projects and service debt. As a result of that lack of 
fiscal discipline, Article I, section 10 of the Constitution 
specifically deprives States of the power to issue bills of credit. 
Over 200 years later, it is the Federal Government that has proved its 
inability to adopt sound fiscal policies, and it is now time to adopt a 
constitutional restraint on Federal fiscal mismanagement.
  Several versions of the balanced budget amendment have been 
introduced this Congress, including two I introduced this Congress, as 
I have every Congress for the last decade. H.J. Res. 2, the version we 
are debating today, is nearly identical to the text that passed the 
House in 1995 and failed in the Senate by one vote. It requires that 
total annual outlays not exceed total annual receipts. It also requires 
a true majority of each Chamber to pass tax increases and a three-
fifths majority to raise the debt limit.

[[Page H3163]]

  Today is the day we can turn proposals into legislative action. Our 
extraordinary fiscal crisis demands an extraordinary solution. We must 
rise above partisanship and join together to send a balanced budget 
amendment to the States for ratification.
  I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and 
in freeing our children and grandchildren from the burden of a 
crippling debt they had no hand in creating so they can be free to 
chart their own futures for themselves and for their own posterity.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the proposed balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution. Specifically, the resolution prohibits 
total outlays from exceeding total receipts for each fiscal year unless 
a three-fifths supermajority of the whole membership of each House of 
Congress votes to override the prohibition. The resolution also 
requires a three-fifths supermajority of each House in order to raise 
the Federal debt limit.
  There are only two conclusions one can reach about this legislation. 
Either it is fundamentally unserious--a facade designed to pretend that 
Republicans, on the heels of a massive Republican tax giveaway to 
corporations and the very rich that will increase the deficit by at 
least $1.5 trillion over the next decade, have a shred of credibility 
when it comes to claims of fiscal responsibility; or it is deadly 
serious--the first step toward their ultimate goal of slashing Social 
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and other critical elements of the 
social safety net--because you cannot have these enormous tax cuts and 
balance the budget without slashing spending programs that most 
Americans depend on.
  Understand the context in which we are considering this legislation. 
White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney recently admitted that the 
Republican tax windfall for the rich would cost the Federal Government 
$1.8 trillion in revenue over the next decade.
  In the wake of their budget-busting tax scam, House Republicans have 
the nerve to now seek to have us vote on this balanced budget amendment 
because they want to maintain the illusion that they care about fiscal 
responsibility. This is the height of hypocrisy.
  But if we assume that Republicans actually intend to pass this 
legislation, we should recognize the catastrophic consequences it would 
have on senior citizens or the disabled and on low-income people. That 
is because it would require radical spending cuts to achieve balance, 
with the principal targets being social safety net programs like Social 
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that millions of Americans depend on.
  I want to commend Mr. Goodlatte for his honesty. He has spent part of 
his speech talking about how we have to cut entitlements.
  What are the chief entitlements? Social Security, Medicare, and 
Medicaid.
  He talks about the lower percentage of expenditures that went for 
entitlement programs years ago before Medicare and Medicaid were 
enacted. Of course, we spend more on entitlements now that we have 
Medicare and Medicaid.
  But what is really causing deficits is not Medicare, Medicaid, and 
Social Security. It is the Republican tax cuts. In the 1980s, when 
Ronald Reagan was elected, the total Federal national debt from George 
Washington through Jimmy Carter was under $800 billion. Then we had the 
Reagan tax cuts, and when George Bush left office 12 years later, the 
national debt had skyrocketed from $800 billion to $4.3 trillion. Then 
we had President Clinton, a Democratic Congress, and Newt Gingrich, who 
deserves some credit for it too, and we had 3 years of balanced budgets 
in the late 1990s. In 2000, the projection was for $5.65 trillion 
Federal surplus over the next 10 years.
  Alan Greenspan, testifying in favor of the Bush tax cuts, said that 
we have to pass these tax cuts because otherwise we will totally pay 
off the national debt, and that is a bad thing for various reasons. So 
we passed the Bush tax cuts--the Republicans did--and between that and 
funding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars without a tax increase off the 
credit card, we greatly increased the national debt again.
  So the Democrats have come in and cleaned up the messes that 
Republicans have left on the national debt by their huge tax cuts for 
the rich, and now they tell us we can't afford Social Security, 
Medicare, and Medicaid because we must keep these tax cuts for the rich 
going.
  This legislation would also undermine the Federal Government's 
ability to respond to an economic crisis. When the Nation's economy 
weakens, incomes of individuals and businesses decrease because of job 
and business losses because of unemployment increasing, which in turn 
automatically results in reduced tax revenues.
  Meanwhile, spending on programs like unemployment insurance benefits 
and food stamps automatically increases as more people lack jobs and 
rely on unemployment benefits and food stamps to stay afloat. These 
programs also help overcome a downward spiral in the economy as they 
help stabilize the decline in consumer purchasing power and prevent a 
recession from turning into a depression.
  But by requiring a balanced budget, this constitutional amendment 
would effectively prohibit the government from drawing on these 
critical stabilizers.
  Although the resolution allows Congress to override the amendment's 
balanced budget mandate, it requires a nearly insurmountable three-
fifths supermajority of the entire membership of the House in both 
Houses. By the time Congress could react to an economic crisis, it 
would have greatly delayed the stimulating effect of the stabilizers. 
This legislation would almost guarantee that a recession would become a 
depression. Meanwhile, millions of Americans who depend on these vital 
programs for food, shelter, and rent would go without assistance.
  In addition to making it harder to avoid an economic crisis, this 
resolution could actually help to precipitate one. By requiring a 
three-fifths supermajority vote of each House of Congress to raise the 
debt limit, H.J. Res. 2 increases the probability that the government 
will default on its obligations and cause the Nation to spiral into a 
financial and economic crisis.
  Beyond its devastating economic and social consequences, this 
resolution is also anti-democratic. To the extent that it requires a 
supermajority to undertake certain steps, such as waiving the balanced 
budget requirement or raising the debt limit, it shifts power away from 
the elected Representatives of a majority of the American people to a 
determined minority that can thwart the majority's will.

  Moreover, this bill inappropriately seeks to enshrine into the 
Constitution one particular economic view that would bind future 
generations and future Congresses that they elect.
  Whatever anyone may think about economic policy and government 
financing, those kinds of policies should be enacted as legislation 
that can be modified, amended, or repealed by future majorities, not 
enshrined in the Constitution to bind future generations to the 
opinions of this generation. That is fundamentally undemocratic and 
tyrannical.
  Finally, this resolution suffers from a fundamental flaw to its 
construction. There is no enforcement mechanism, and it is not clear 
what would happen if Congress ignored it and passed an unbalanced 
budget without the required supermajority. Presumably, it would somehow 
be resolved in the Federal courts. We would see judges ordering tax 
increases, or cuts in Social Security, or revising the transportation 
budget, you name it, without any legislative guidance, and on what 
basis they would make such decisions is anyone's guess.
  We should not have judges determining inherently political questions 
regarding budgetary decisions, upending the principle of separation of 
powers and generating massive litigation over questions ranging from 
who has the standing to sue, to what remedies a court can impose if it 
found a violation.
  This legislation is ill-conceived and deeply problematic. As I stated 
earlier, this resolution is either a farce--just for show and a few 
well-timed press releases--or it is a Trojan horse--an innocuous 
looking resolution that is really designed to enable the long-held 
Republican dream of dismantling Social Security, Medicare, and 
Medicaid,

[[Page H3164]]

a goal they could never achieve politically but might achieve with a 
constitutional amendment on the balanced budget. Either way, this 
resolution is not worthy of this House.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 2, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), a member of the Judiciary Committee and 
chairman of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the reason we have a big deficit is 
not due to a lack of tax revenue; it is due to the fact that Congress 
spends too much money.
  Now, let me repeat that. The deficit and the debt are not caused by a 
lack of tax revenue. It is because there is too much money that is 
authorized and spent right here in the Congress of the United States.
  This proposed constitutional amendment will give us the discipline 
that we have not had, as we have sat and watched the deficit go up and 
up and up and up and away. It is the responsibility of Presidents of 
both political parties that this has happened, and maybe it is time for 
us to tell colleagues now and in the future and Presidents now and in 
the future that the time to put things on the cuff is at an end.
  I would say that doing what we have done, which means spending money 
on ourselves and sending the bill plus interest to the next 
generations, is bad economics. But it is also immoral.
  Now, I have a grandson who is a little bit more than a year old, and 
unless Congress stops doing this, he is going to end up having a debt 
that will boggle the mind that he and his contemporaries are going to 
have difficulty meeting.
  So what do we need to do?
  Number one, we need to stop passing bloated omnibus bills. I voted 
``no'' proudly on the omnibus bill, which busted the budget and added 
to the debt.
  We need to start getting honest about the fact that entitlement 
programs are spiraling out of control. And that doesn't mean cutting 
entitlement programs for existing people; it means slowing down their 
growth rate.
  But that is something that nice people aren't supposed to talk about, 
particularly here in Congress. But it is something that is necessary if 
those entitlement programs are going to be worth anything for future 
generations when they may need them rather than dealing with the 
present generation.
  Now, I know we can all count up votes, and people vote now and we are 
not going to be running in the future. But the time has come to think 
about the future, and that is why this constitutional amendment ought 
to be passed.
  Congress can't discipline itself. The only thing that can discipline 
us is saying what Congress can't do in the United States Constitution, 
just like the First and Second Amendments.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Jeffries).
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, the so-called balanced budget amendment is 
nothing but a phony, fraudulent, and fake effort to promote fiscal 
responsibility.
  I am perplexed by the notion that my good friends on the other side 
of the aisle would come to the House floor to lecture the American 
people about the budget when their actions are primarily responsible 
for the situation in which we find ourselves.
  How did we arrive at a moment where, in this country, we confront a 
crippling $20 trillion debt when the Clinton administration handed the 
Bush administration a budget surplus?
  I am glad you asked that question.
  Number one, a failed war in Iraq, brought to us by a Republican 
administration;
  Number two, an unnecessarily prolonged conflict in Afghanistan, 
brought to us by a Republican administration;
  Number three, the Bush tax giveaways of 2001, brought to us by a 
Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President;
  Number four, the 2003 Bush tax giveaway, brought to us by a 
Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President;
  Number five, the collapse of the economy in 2008, brought to us by 
Republican-inspired financial deregulation;
  Number six, the Republican tax scam of 2017 that will explode our 
debt by an additional $2 trillion.
  Republicans burn down our fiscal house and then show up with a so-
called balanced budget amendment and act like the volunteer fire 
department.
  I am from Brooklyn. I know a hustle when I see one. We will not allow 
anyone to balance the budget on the backs of working families, middle 
class folks, senior citizens, the poor, the sick, the afflicted, 
veterans, and rural America. We will not allow anyone to devastate 
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
  The American people deserve a better deal.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith), a member of the Judiciary Committee and chairman of 
the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank the gentleman 
from Virginia, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for yielding me 
time and also for his tireless efforts over the years to pass a 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives votes to protect 
future generations from our debilitating debt. Thomas Jefferson 
believed that ``the public debt is the greatest of dangers to be 
feared.'' He wished ``it were possible to obtain a single amendment to 
our Constitution taking from the Federal Government the power of 
borrowing.''
  It is past time that we listen to Jefferson's commonsense advice. 
American families balance their checkbooks. States and local 
governments balance their budgets. So should the Federal Government.
  The last balanced budget occurred in the 1990s. The previous balanced 
budget was during the Eisenhower administration. Surely it is not too 
much to ask that we take a major step towards having a balanced budget 
in our future.
  Mr. Speaker, only a balanced budget amendment wil guarantee that the 
Federal Government puts its fiscal house in order and keeps it that 
way.

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Delaney).
  Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the balanced 
budget amendment, which, in my judgment, is one of the worst pieces of 
legislation I have seen since I have been in the Congress.
  First, it will act as a doomsday machine, destroying critical 
programs like Social Security, Medicare, investments in our 
infrastructure, investments in science and research, and investments in 
our military.
  Second, it represents wrongheaded economics. To manage the country 
with a zero deficit is not smart economic policy.
  Third, it is being presented to the American people in a deceitful 
manner. To compare fiscal planning of the U.S. Government to how 
hardworking families in this country should manage their own personal 
finances is misrepresenting how we should think about our government.
  And fourth, it is being done entirely for political reasons: to 
direct attention away from tax legislation that has materially 
increased the deficit of this country.
  If we wanted to have an honest conversation about the fiscal 
situation of this country, which is terrible and projected to be worse, 
we would focus on three numbers: The first number we would focus on, or 
the first percentage, is our debt as a percentage of our economy; the 
second ratio we would focus on is how much we think our economy could 
grow each year; and the third number we would focus on is the 
percentage of our deficit as expressed relative to our economy.
  If we actually wanted to work together, if the majority and the 
minority wanted to work together and put together a fiscal plan for 
this country that was responsible, that represented smart economics, 
allowed us to invest in our country, and put us on a trajectory where 
the debt, as a percentage of our economy, would go down over time and 
return to normal levels, then we

[[Page H3165]]

would be talking about how do we come up with a budget that had 
deficits on an annual basis of minus 1.5 to 2 percent.
  That wouldn't put us in a position where we have to slash so many 
important government programs because this government has insufficient 
tax revenues. In fact, our tax revenues are the lowest as a percentage 
of our economy that they have been in 50 years.
  But if we actually wanted to have a real conversation about putting 
this country on an appropriate kind of long-term fiscal trajectory, we 
would work towards 2 percent deficits. Because if, in fact, our economy 
could grow at 2.5 percent a year, then, by definition, the debt as a 
percentage of our economy would go down; and it would go down by 
setting realistic goals that don't represent inappropriate cuts to core 
government programs like Medicare and Social Security and our defense 
spending and our investment in our country, in our kids, in our 
infrastructure, and in our research.
  That would be a conversation that represents smart economic policy. 
It would be an honest conversation with the American people. It 
wouldn't be done for political reasons, and it would materially improve 
the fiscal trajectory of this country.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Goodlatte, for leading on this 
constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. We have fought this out 
in past years and brought this to the floor a couple of times that I 
can remember here.
  But I would like to dial back your memory, Mr. Speaker, to 1998, when 
the House of Representatives did pass a balanced budget amendment to 
our United States Constitution and sent it over to the United States 
Senate. And late in the year of 1998, after a hard-fought whip team 
pulled the votes together, they put together the two-thirds votes 
necessary in the Senate to pass that constitutional amendment for a 
balanced budget off to the States for ratification in three-quarters of 
the States.
  They had the votes, and at the last minute, one Senator walked down 
and, in dramatic fashion, voted ``no'' when he was on the whip card 
expected to vote ``yes.'' And that is what blocked a balanced budget 
amendment in 1998, within one vote, because I think all of us here are 
confident that the States would have ratified a balanced budget 
amendment, and then we would be living under the balanced budget 
amendment from sometime, probably pretty near the turn of the 
millennium, around the year 2000.
  Think what a difference it would be today. This Nation might have a 
little debt left, but it would be a shrinking debt because, whenever 
you balance the budget, if it's balanced, you are always going to end 
up with a little black because the pencil doesn't work quite that 
precisely.
  We missed that window. We have the window now in this year, in our 
time, and we have an obligation to pass this balanced budget amendment.
  When I came here in 2003, we were at balance as far as the spending 
was concerned, but not with the budget that was approved. I asked the 
Budget Committee chairman: Where is our balanced budget amendment?
  He said: We can't balance the budget. We are at war. We have been 
attacked in New York and in the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania, and we 
have to set up TSA and spend all this money, and it is impossible to 
balance the budget.
  I said: It can't be impossible.
  I set about writing a balanced budget myself, as a freshman, in the 
first weeks here. I wasn't prepared to do that at that time. But had we 
gotten that done, had we tightened our belt, had we implemented the 
kind of discipline this constitutional amendment before us today will 
bring about, we wouldn't be talking about debt and deficit. We wouldn't 
be talking about 107 million Americans not in the workforce because 
they are of age but they are being tempted to stay home on the couch 
with more than 70 different means-tested Federal welfare programs.

  We haven't demonstrated the discipline. If interest should increase 
by 1 percent, that is $200 billion a year. And if that goes up and up, 
we are, pretty soon, collapsed in an untenable situation with our 
spending. We need to make this decision in our time, force this 
discipline on this Congress, and we need to focus, also, on what failed 
the last time in 1998.
  One vote has now accumulated to over $20 trillion in national debt, 
falling short one vote in the United States Senate. Let's not fall 
short here today. Let's send this over to the Senate. Let's send the 
message to America.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle).
  Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
ranking member for yielding me this time.
  Last week when I saw the vote calendar for this week and I saw on it 
was a schedule to vote on the balanced budget amendment, I actually 
laughed out loud. I assumed that it was surely a joke, because there is 
no way the Republican majority, just a few months after voting for a 
$1.9 trillion tax cut that would add more to the national debt than any 
other single vote in my lifetime, surely they wouldn't have the nerve 
to come back a few months later and, with a straight face, be pushing a 
balanced budget amendment. Yet it turns out it wasn't a joke. Here we 
are.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Speaker, my fellow Americans, this is part of a two-pronged 
attack. Part one of that two-pronged attack was the $1.9 trillion tax 
cut--83 percent of which goes to the richest 1 percent. Part two is to 
stand up here and say: Oh, my goodness, we suddenly have a debt 
problem. It must be because we are spending too much. And part two 
calls for pushing through a draconian bill that would mandate trillions 
of dollars of cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, 
veterans programs, and other critical spending.
  Here are the statistics. Under this legislation, by 2028, $2.6 
trillion would be cut from Social Security; $1.7 trillion cut from 
Medicare; $1.2 trillion cut from Medicaid, CHIP and the ACA; and 
finally, $250 billion cut from veterans disability.
  We cannot afford these draconian cuts. We must stand up and reject 
this laughable attempt to simply push through the largest cuts in 
American history. We must say ``no.''
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Babin).
  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
constitutional balanced budget amendment. My constituents sent me to 
Washington to lower taxes, strengthen our economy, and to cut Federal 
spending. We have made some progress on the first two, but we have a 
lot of work to do on the third.
  We have passed historic tax cut legislation, which is stimulating job 
creation and economic growth, raising wages, and allowing the American 
people to keep more of what is in their paycheck. The unemployment rate 
has remained low, and over 200,000 new manufacturing jobs have been 
created in the past 15 months. That is all good news for America's 
future.
  Unfortunately, Washington has an addiction to spending money that it 
doesn't have, accumulating a national debt of now more than $20 
trillion. That is four times more debt than in 1995 when Washington 
fell one vote short of passing a balanced budget amendment. Politicians 
in Washington told the American people that Congress could balance the 
budget on their own and they didn't need a constitutional amendment. 
That was flat out wrong.
  Unless Washington is forced to rein in spending through the 
discipline of a constitutional amendment, it will never balance the 
budget. If there is any doubt, simply look at last month's omnibus 
spending bill, which I voted against. That bill is exhibit A in the 
case for a balanced budget amendment.
  Our national debt undermines our economy and our national security. 
Washington has a moral obligation to balance its budget. Our amendment 
gives Washington the discipline that it lacks by ensuring that Congress 
cannot spend more money than it takes in.
  This resolution asks Congress to make the same tough questions and 
decisions about its budget that the American households and small 
businesses make every single day. We owe it to

[[Page H3166]]

our children and our grandchildren, so let's pass this resolution as a 
first step toward financial discipline.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the proposed bureaucratic approach of the balanced 
budget amendment says nothing about our national priorities, about what 
to do about massive and growing economic inequality, about addressing 
the impact of globalization on the American people.
  It says nothing about infrastructure for sustainable energy, water, 
transportation, communication, health, education, housing, the opioid 
epidemic, climate change, or Social Security. It says nothing about 
addressing the great inequities facing women, African Americans, 
Latinos, Native Americans, the LGBTQ community, the disabled, or the 
homeless.
  The balanced budget amendment would wipe out trillions of dollars of 
Social Security, Medicare, military and civil service retirement trust 
funds, and the FDIC and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation trust 
funds.
  At a time when our Nation may be heading for a constitutional crisis 
because Congress is unable to find a simple majority for legislative 
guarantees, guaranteeing that no one man is above the law, a balanced 
budget amendment would create an ongoing scenario of endless potential 
constitutional crises should Congress be unable to find supermajorities 
to resolve budget shortfalls, creating the threat of political 
extortion by a congressional minority. The balanced budget amendment is 
a direct attack on our citizens and our democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, let us end this facade of reality and vote down this 
assault on real government.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton).
  (Mr. BARTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, almost 34 years ago, in January 1995, I stood right over 
there, held up my right hand with my 2-year-old daughter, Kristin, took 
an oath to defend this country and this Constitution against all 
enemies, foreign and domestic. And as soon as I had taken the oath of 
office to be a Member of the House of Representatives, I walked over to 
the hopper and put in the Barton tax limitation balanced budget 
amendment. It was H.J. Res. 33, I believe. That was almost 34 years 
ago.
  At that time, the national debt was less than $2 trillion. Today, it 
is over $20 trillion. In the time that I have been in the House, we 
have had three or four balanced budgets on a cash flow basis, so that 
means we have had 30 unbalanced budgets. We have piled almost $19 
trillion on our children and our grandchildren's backs with no hope to 
ever repay.
  The balanced budget constitutional amendment is not a panacea. It 
doesn't solve all of our problems, but it is a step in the right 
direction.
  I have a few issues with this particular balanced budget amendment. 
It is not as strong as I would like it to be, but I commend the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee for bringing it to the floor for a 
vote. It is a positive first step.
  It is not compassionate, Mr. Speaker, to spend money we don't have 
and keep adding deficits that we will never repay. There is always an 
inexhaustible demand for more Federal dollars. At some point in time, 
we have to start the process of living within our means and, believe it 
or not, repaying what we have already borrowed.
  This constitutional amendment, again, it is not perfect, but it is a 
step in the right direction. I urge its passage by a two-thirds vote to 
send it to the Senate, hopefully, for a similar two-thirds vote.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Torres).
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of the so-called 
balanced budget amendment. Like so many Americans who have been 
following the budget process, I am too very disappointed with this 
Congress. The budget is the value statement by which we govern America.
  The amendment before us and the recent massive cuts passed by 
Republicans are far from a reflection of those values. That tax bill 
added yet another $1 trillion of debt to our children's pocketbooks. 
And for what? So millionaires could get a tax cut 70 times larger than 
what the middle class received? The vote we take today will pay for 
that tax cut by cutting programs the middle class depends on.
  As a mother and grandmother, I have to ask: What kind of future are 
we leaving for our families? You cannot hand millions of dollars to 
millionaires and corporations one day while pretending to be concerned 
about our budget deficit the next. That doesn't make you a fiscal hawk.
  That is why the Congressional Hispanic Caucus has been working on a 
plan to get us back on track, and I am proud to help lead those efforts 
as the chair of the Budget Task Force. In this role, I am pushing for 
solutions that promote the well-being and strength of our local 
communities. Sure, we all want a balanced budget. This vote today is 
not a solution. It is an attack on the middle class families we 
represent.
  As a former mayor and a State legislator, I know firsthand the 
difference between a true balanced budget and what that means for 
securing the resources and services our States and cities need. It has 
long been my priority to ensure healthcare remains accessible for 
everyone, especially the most vulnerable in our communities. We can't 
do that if we are making enormous cuts to Medicare, to Medicaid, to 
Social Security programs our very low-income families, individuals with 
disabilities, seniors, and veterans depend on for their livelihoods.
  More than 50 million Americans depend on Medicare. Many of them make 
less than $24,000 a year. The Nation's seniors have worked their whole 
lives and contributed to the Social Security program. It is not a gift 
to them.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Judiciary Committee and chairman of 
the Small Business Committee.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Goodlatte for his long-time 
commitment to this very, very important issue, passing a balanced 
budget amendment for our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, with the national debt exceeding $20 trillion, it is 
long past time that we take necessary steps to restore fiscal 
responsibility to the budget process. Too often, spending bills are 
passed by adding to the deficit rather than balancing the budget and 
helping to pay down our national debt. It is time to reverse that 
mentality.
  One of the greatest disappointments that I have experienced in my 22 
years in Congress happened when we passed a balanced budget amendment 
in the House by the required two-thirds votes, but the effort failed in 
the Senate by just one vote, and a number of Members from the House 
went down to the Senate to personally watch that vote and stare those 
Senators in the eye, and it was such a disappointment because we all 
knew then how important this was to our country.
  And here we are, 20-plus years later, and the debt has gone up far 
more than any of us thought even possible at that time. Had the 
balanced budget amendment passed back then, our debt today certainly 
would be lower, much lower.
  The American people sent us here to make the difficult decisions 
necessary to balance the budget and to live within our means. Just as 
the American people have to do, every family has to balance their 
budget every week or every month, and they can't spend more than they 
take in or they end up going bankrupt. Our Federal Government is 
basically bankrupt, but since we print money here, we are able to go 
on. But that harms the American people. It harms our economy. We have 
got to do something about it.
  We cannot continue to just hope that we pass a balanced budget. It 
has become increasingly obvious over the years that the only way to 
ensure a balanced budget is to mandate, to require that Congress pass 
one, and that is what we are considering today.

                              {time}  1315

  Passage of the balanced budget amendment is the only thing that we

[[Page H3167]]

can do to make certain that we, and future Congresses, rein in the out-
of-control spending and restore fiscal sanity to Washington.
  The resolution offered by Chairman Goodlatte today takes the 
necessary steps to ensure that for any fiscal year, total outlays--what 
we spend--do not exceed total receipts--what we take in. Our Nation 
cannot continue to spend money that it doesn't have.
  Let's end the borrow-and-spend mentality that created our staggering 
national debt--over $20 trillion--and put our Nation on a sustainable 
path by requiring that a balanced budget be enacted every year.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations and a member of 
the Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I think it is important for those of us who have served here that we 
are down this frivolous route again: this unconstitutional effort to 
remedy the disaster that has been perpetrated by the Republican tax 
scam.
  Let me tell you what the CBO Director said, who is known to be the 
bipartisan, nonpartisan arbiter of the work that the Congress does.
  First of all, they say the tax cut will create deficits of historic 
proportions. Not Medicaid or Medicare or Social Security. An $800 
billion deficit in 2018, $1 trillion in 2019, and $1 trillion in 2020. 
That is what the Republicans have created.
  Now, in this false and ridiculous, possibly unconstitutional effort, 
here we go again with a balanced budget amendment that will, in fact, 
deny and implode the needs of those who need Medicare, Social Security, 
and Medicaid.
  This balanced budget amendment is antidemocratic in that it requires 
a supermajority in Congress to increase the debt limit, deficit 
spending, or raise revenue. All would have been unnecessary if we had 
not passed the tax scam. Remember, we gave the corporate tax relief a 
21 percent number, instead of 25 percent, coming from 33 percent, when 
they didn't ask for it.
  It is antidemocratic because it enshrines one particular economic 
theory into the Constitution: depriving future voters and future 
Congresses of the ability to adopt other economic approaches. That is 
our responsibility as leaders giving oversight to the needs of the 
American people, to the needs of the Pentagon, and to the needs of 
domestic spending.
  By the way, this deficit will be more than domestic spending and 
defense spending. It raises separation of powers concerns because it 
would open the door to allowing Federal courts to make budget policy 
decisions. It is economically harmful because it would hamper the 
ability of Congress to respond to economic downturns and other 
emergencies.
  Were anyone here in 2007 and 2008, particularly when the Secretary of 
the Treasury under the Bush administration came and told this 
Democratic Congress, of which I was a Member of, that America, as we 
knew it, was getting ready to end, that we saw the demise of Lehman 
Brothers and the collapse of the market, it wasn't Democrats who did 
that, it was Republicans. It is economically harmful because it would 
hamper the ability again for us to deal with those kinds of downturns.
  It jeopardizes funding of Social Security and the military and civil 
service retirement system, and it undermines the Nation's financial 
system, including deposit insurance. It is unnecessary because Congress 
was able to achieve a balanced budget in the 1990s, of which I was here 
through the existing political process, and created the Children's 
Health Insurance Program.
  Therefore, this balanced budget amendment is an amendment that 
creates havoc. What we should do is to undo the tax scam, repeal it, 
start again, and not implode Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. 
To the seniors who are living there: don't buy into a balanced budget 
amendment which is unconstitutional, buy into repealing the tax scam 
and standing for the American people.
  I conclude by saying many national groups oppose this.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 2, the so-
called Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which 
properly should be called the ``Cut, Cap, and End Medicare and Destroy 
Social Security Act'' because this is exactly what will happen if this 
amendment is passed by Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the 
several states.
  A balanced budget amendment is a perennial gimmick periodically 
dusted off by House Republicans to divert attention from their manifest 
inability to govern competently or to manage the nation's finances.
  H.J. Res. 2 is no exception coming as it does on the heels of the 
report by the Congressional Budget Office documenting that the Trump/
GOP budget deficit continues to climb and is projected to exceed $800 
billion this year and to top $1 trillion next year and to remain at 
that level for foreseeable future.
  Moreover, the CBO report confirms that the GOP TaxScam passed last 
year by this Republican Congress on a party-line vote will not pay for 
itself and is in fact the major cause of the rising the deficit.
  Mr. Speaker, if our friends across the aisle really want to shrink 
the deficit, reduce the national debt, practice fiscal responsibility, 
and bring about sustained economic growth and prosperity, there is a 
much better, easier, and more certain way to achieve these goals than 
by tampering with the U.S. Constitution.
  The easier and better way is for the American people to put a 
Democrat in the White House and Democratic majorities in the House and 
Senate.
  In the 1990s under the leadership of President Clinton the budget was 
balanced for four consecutive years, the national debt was paid down, 
the national debt, 23 million new jobs were created, and projected 
surpluses exceeded $5 trillion.
  Under President Obama the financial crisis and economic meltdown 
inherited from his Republican predecessor was ended, the annual deficit 
was reduced by 67 percent, the auto industry was saved from collapse, 
and 15 million jobs were created.
  In contrast, under every Republican administration since President 
Reagan the size of the deficit bequeathed to his successor was 
substantially larger than the one he inherited, a major economic 
recession occurred, and economic growth was lower than the.
  Turning to the joint resolution before us, I strongly oppose this 
latest gimmick for the following reasons:
  1. it is anti-democratic in that it requires a supermajority in 
Congress to increase the debt limit, deficit spending, or raise 
revenue;
  2. it is anti-democratic because it enshrines one particular economic 
theory into the Constitution, depriving future voters and future 
Congresses of the ability to adopt other economic approaches;
  3. it raises separation of powers concerns because it would open the 
door to allowing federal courts to make budget policy decisions;
  4. it is economically harmful because it would hamper the ability of 
Congress to respond to economic downturns and other emergencies;
  5. it jeopardizes funding for Social Security and military and civil 
service retirement systems;
  6. it undermines the nation's financial system, including deposit 
insurance; and
  7. it is unnecessary because Congress was able to achieve balanced 
budgets in the 1990's through the existing political process.
  It is for these reasons that numerous outside groups committed to the 
economic well-being of the United States as well as organizations 
concerned with the needs of the elderly, the middle class, children, 
and other basic needs of national importance strongly opposed a measure 
in the 112th Congress virtually identical to Chairman Goodlatte's 
current H.J. Res. 2, and that measure failed to garner a supermajority 
as required by the Constitution.
  These groups included a coalition of 123 religious, labor, education, 
civil rights, child advocacy, and other organizations; a coalition of 
six national environmental organizations representing over one million 
members and activists; OMB Watch (now the Center for Effective 
Government); the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial 
Organizations (AFL-CIO); the Service Employees International Union 
(SEIU); the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal 
Employees (AFSCME); the National Education Association (NEA); the 
National Women's Law Center, Committee for Education Funding, and the 
Coalition on Human Needs.
  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.
  This Amendment is portrayed as the alternative to our country's 
deficit issue, but in reality, a Balanced Budget Amendment truly 
undermines the goal of a balanced budget by

[[Page H3168]]

threatening the survival of such critical programs as Social Security, 
Medicare, and Medicaid that serve as fundamental safety nets for 
millions of Americans.
  These important social programs face greater demand when federal 
receipts are in rapid declines.
  Requiring a balanced budget 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 recession worse.
  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 times 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.
  Further, this Amendment will gridlock Congress during an economic 
downturn.
  There has never been such a blatant effort to ransom the American 
economy in order to extort from 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 the Congress to deal effectively with 
America's economic, fiscal, and job creation challenges.
  We need to change the tone here in the Congress.
  There has been a theme in previous Congresses and in this Congress of 
focusing on cutting programs that benefit those who need it most, while 
ignoring the need to focus on real and contemporary job creation and 
economic recovery.
  And by real and contemporary job creation, I do not mean Trump's 
unsubstantiated and impossible promise of coal jobs.
  The creation of coal jobs is one of the many myths and false hopes 
peddled by the current White House.
  The promise that jobs in coal are just around the corner is fake 
news.
  Our time could be better spent focusing on ways to increase American 
jobs, growing our economy, and investing in our people, paying our 
bills, and resolving our differences.
  That is the way you make and keep America great.
  A balanced budget is not something that should be mandated in our 
Constitution, nor is it something that should be required every year, 
proposing an idea that offers little guarantee of success.
  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.
  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 the Congress to cut spending to 
match revenue every year would both limit the 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.
  As with the outlay cap that a Balanced Budget Amendment would bring, 
tying outlays to a percentage of GDP would impose arbitrary limits on 
government actions to respond to an economic slowdown or recession, 
when GDP declines.
  Cutting spending during a recession could make a recession worse by 
increasing the number of unemployed, decreasing business investment, 
and withholding services needed to jump-start the economy.
  The proposed Balanced Budget Amendment would render Social Security 
unconstitutional in its current form due to the Amendment's prohibitive 
stance on that system of spending.
  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.
  Because this proposal would make it impossible for the Congress to 
increase revenues rather than to cut spending, it is virtually a 
political ploy that reflects the Republican priorities of ending the 
Medicare guarantee while cutting taxes for millionaires.
  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 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, would have 
catastrophic impacts on the economy.
  Interest rates would rise, increasing costs for the government and 
for 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.
  Under H.J. Res. 2 total funding would be cut for non-defense 
discretionary programs, including veterans' medical care, most homeland 
security activities, border protection, and the FBI.
  Therefore, these cuts will impact funds to protect our nation's food 
and water supply, environmental protections, medical research, 
education, and services for disadvantaged or abused children, frail 
elderly people, and people with severe disabilities.
  The Founders purposely made the Constitutional amendment process a 
long and arduous one.
  It is foolish, reckless, and decidedly not conservative to rush to 
pass an amendment altering our nation's founding document on such short 
notice and without reasonable time for debate.
  Republicans who support this proposed amendment to the Constitution 
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.
  Medicare covers a population with diverse needs and circumstances.
  Most people with Medicare live on modest incomes.
  While many many beneficiaries enjoy good health, 25 percent or more 
have serious health problems and live with multiple chronic conditions, 
including cognitive and functional impairments.
  Today, 43 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries are between 65 and 74 
years old and 12 percent 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.
  For these reasons, I am strongly opposed to despoiling the 
Constitution by even considering the Republicans' latest Balanced 
Budget Amendment gimmick.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Roe), the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. 
Res. 2, proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States. And I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte for the 
incredible work he has done on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, families across America have to balance their budgets, 
and it is time Washington does the same thing. I was the mayor of my 
local city before I came here: six balanced budgets with surpluses each 
and every year. Forty-eight States, including my home State of 
Tennessee, require a balanced budget by law.
  What makes Washington any different?
  Members of Congress are required to balance their office budgets or 
pay for any overages themselves. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? 435 balanced 
budgets.
  The rhetoric we hear from the other side is that the reason we have 
magic budget deficits is tax cuts. Let's talk about an inconvenient 
truth: revenues collected by the Federal Government have never been 
higher in the history of this country. Revenue has increased nearly 8 
percent annually over the last 7 years. And, Mr. Speaker, the Federal 
Government doesn't need to spend 8 percent more revenue each and every 
year. What we need to do is rein in our spending. Spending is the 
problem.
  The other point we have heard is that the recent omnibus spending 
bill is another sign that Congress lacks seriousness about addressing 
spending. Well, discretionary spending has been growing at or about 2.4 
percent over the last

[[Page H3169]]

14 years annualized. That is a lot more than many of us would like, but 
we basically have held this spending in check.
  The problem is our ballooning mandatory programs that account for 70 
cents of every dollar we spend annually is a problem. Mandatory 
spending, which includes pensions, food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, 
Social Security, and others is growing at 7\1/2\ percent per year. 
Medicare and Social Security both face a crisis in the not-too-distant 
future, and Congress has to make hard choices about how to secure these 
programs for future generations. I am convinced, however, that the only 
way Congress will make those hard choices is if we are forced to.
  Both parties bear responsibility for our annual budget deficits, but 
people have a choice here today. The last time we had a chance to vote 
on a similar resolution was 2011, and the only thing that has changed 
since then is that our debt and deficit have exploded further. It is 
time that we, in Congress, make the hard decision and require 
Washington to abide by the same budget before it is too late and we 
can't right the ship: the same thing that families do every single week 
and month of the year.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.J. Res. 2, and I encourage all of 
my colleagues to do the same and help start the process of bringing 
some fiscal responsibility back to Washington.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Johnson), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, no one in their right mind 
should be supporting this cynical and hypocritical Republican balanced 
budget amendment. This resolution has been rushed to the floor today 
without a single committee hearing.
  The don't-tax-but-spend Republicans just exploded the national debt. 
They exploded this national debt by nearly $2 trillion with the tax 
scam-tax cut bill that dished out a $5.5 trillion gift to big 
multinational corporations and to the top 1 percent crowd: $5.5 
trillion. Now they come back dumping, like a wheelbarrow full of horse 
manure, a radical balanced budget amendment onto this House floor 
today.
  The Washington Post said that this is like Donald Trump proposing to 
lead a campaign to make adultery illegal. I agree with that assessment.
  After passing their $5.5 trillion tax cut, and after passage of the 
omnibus spending bill that exploded the national debt, the don't-tax-
but-spend Republicans are now shamelessly demanding that needy seniors 
sacrifice their retirement security to pay for the shameful tax 
giveaway to the greedy.
  And that is not all. Just this week, the CBO released a report 
forecasting annual deficits of $1 trillion or more every single year 
that President Trump remains in office.
  This Republican hypocrisy has got to stop.
  Republican fiscal strategy has three goals: one, cut taxes for the 
wealthy; two, keep up the charade that they are fiscally responsible; 
and, three, and above all, they want to cut the social safety net. They 
want to cut programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food 
stamps, all to pay for their handouts to those who already have plenty.
  Enough is enough.
  The American people cannot afford Republicans' fiscal hypocrisy any 
longer.
  Democrats will continue to fight for a better deal for working people 
in America: policies that create good-paying jobs, reduce the deficit, 
and grow the economy for everyone. Americans deserve a better deal. 
They deserve better jobs, better wages, and a better future.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk).
  Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the time.
  Let's make no mistake today. The only reason that we are here, today, 
talking about an amendment to the Constitution to force Congress to 
balance a budget is because of the lack of fiscal responsibility of 
this body over the past several years.
  Throughout the history of the United States, the United States has 
gone into debt during times of national crisis or war, but both parties 
understood the danger to our national security and our economy by 
sustaining a debt and, therefore, worked together to pay off that debt. 
But not in the modern era of Congress, no. We continue to print money, 
and we continue to go deeper and deeper into debt.

  Make no mistake, the American people understand that this enormous 
debt that we have accrued in this country of $21 trillion is a 
responsibility of Congress, and it is our responsibility to fix this 
problem. Now, a lot of people don't understand how much money $21 
trillion really is. That is part of the problem. Our debt is so big 
that no one really understands how big this debt is. Let me put it into 
perspective.
  Regardless of your background or your religious beliefs, if you know 
what today's date is, you know historically when Jesus was born. If you 
were to go back to the moment that Jesus was born and put $17,000 into 
the bank, and you waited 60 seconds and put another $17,000 into the 
bank, you waited another 60 seconds and deposited another $17,000 into 
the bank, and you continued to put $17,000 into the bank every minute 
since Jesus was born, you still wouldn't have enough money to pay off 
our national debt today, and that is an atrocity to the American 
people.
  There is one way to fix this. We can either pass this amendment and 
have it ratified, or we can actually have the fortitude to pass a 
balanced budget.
  The Republican Study Committee will bring to this floor a balanced 
budget, as we have many times in the past. And if my colleagues who are 
calling us hypocrites are serious about balancing this budget, then 
they will come together and vote for a budget that balanced. We have 
the authority, we have the power to do that, it is just we don't have 
the fortitude or willingness to do what is hard. We owe it to our 
grandchildren, and we owe it to our children.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Judy Chu).
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, after years of irresponsibly 
adding to our national debt in order to make the rich richer, 
Republicans are now trying to con the American people with this 
insidious and insincere balanced budget amendment.
  I say insincere because Republicans have been the greatest 
contributors to our national debt. They eagerly supported and even 
extended President Bush's 2001 tax cuts, which added more than $5 
trillion to the deficit over 10 years. And at the start of this 
Congress, they rushed headlong into another $2.3 trillion tax scam that 
the Congressional Budget Office says will put our deficit over $1 
trillion within just 2 years.
  And what do the American people get for all of that? Very little, if 
you are not already rich, since 80 percent of that $2.3 trillion goes 
straight to the top 1 percent.

                              {time}  1330

  Here is why I say this is insidious. First, they pass a Robin Hood 
tax scam that robs the coffers and gives it to the wealthiest, then 
they use that debt that they themselves created to justify draconian 
cuts to the vast majority of Americans who are not millionaires.
  In his budget, President Trump proposed cuts of $1.4 trillion from 
Medicaid, $500 billion from Medicare, $65 billion from Social Security.
  Fortunately, Democrats blocked these cuts, but if this amendment 
passes, look out, America. The programs you depend on will be pillaged 
to pay for the Republican tax cuts, despite our warnings that it would 
result in exactly this situation.
  In fact, the latest Center on Budget and Policy report said that the 
cuts mandated by this amendment would result in Social Security being 
cut by $325 billion in 2025 alone.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  April 12, 2018, on page H3169, the following appeared: Social 
Security being cut by $25 billion in 2025 alone.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: Social Security 
being cut by $325 billion in 2025 alone.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  On seeing the CBO's deficit report, Senator Bob Corker, referencing 
the tax scam, said: ``It could be one of the worst votes I have ever 
made.''
  Well, we tried to warn you, but now the American people shouldn't be 
the ones to pay for the mistake.
  If Republicans want to balance the budget, there is nothing stopping 
them. It is time that we stop the tax scam.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Mitchell).
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, my home State of Michigan requires a 
balanced annual budget. We actually have

[[Page H3170]]

a rainy day fund. A rainy day fund will ensure when tax revenues fall 
because of the economy, we can pay our costs to run the government.
  Every household needs to balance its budget and live within its 
means. Imagine that. A novel concept. This Federal Government should do 
the same thing.
  Mr. Speaker, the current U.S. national debt has topped $21 trillion. 
We could make a big stack of that here. I am not sure we could count 
that high or have the time to do it today. We are coming to the edge of 
a fiscal crisis, unless we take aggressive steps to rein in our debt, 
our spending.
  I spent 35 years in business. I full well know that in order to be 
successful, you can't just spend whatever you think you need and hope 
it all works out.
  I have heard colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, ``What? 
We brought this to the floor without hearings?''
  We need to have hearings about not spending more than we have? I 
can't imagine that. Think about that.
  We talk about if we actually reduce our spending, we are going to 
pillage programs? On the other side of the aisle, they talk about just 
increase taxes.
  I went to the school of economics and public policy. The reality is, 
look at what has happened in Greece and other countries. You can't, by 
raising taxes, simply think you are going to get more revenue. In fact, 
it goes someplace else frequently. The answer is not spend yourself 
into oblivion and hope to raise taxes.
  That is why I stand here today in full support of H.J. Res. 2, the 
balanced budget amendment. I cosponsored it, I support it. It brings 
needed financial discipline to this Congress, because it is abundantly 
clear to me in 16 months here, we are unable to control our spending 
unless someone puts the reins on us, puts us, frankly, in handcuffs, 
because we find a way to spend more money than we ever hope to have.
  It is time to stop. We owe it to the American people, we owe it to 
our children and grandchildren; otherwise, frankly, we are going to 
shackle them to debt for their entire lives.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds just to set the 
record straight.
  We did indeed hold a hearing on the balanced budget amendment. I do 
agree with the gentleman from Michigan that the obvious was stated in 
that hearing, but a hearing was indeed held.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I would note that most households do not 
balance their budgets. They borrow to buy the car, they borrow for the 
mortgage, and if they didn't do that, they wouldn't have a car or a 
mortgage.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this balanced budget 
amendment.
  Just a few months ago, Republicans plunged this Nation nearly $2 
trillion deeper into debt with a tax scam bill that gave massive 
handouts to corporations and the ultra wealthy.
  Another trip down memory lane reminds us that Republicans care so 
much about balancing our budget, that one of the first things that they 
did upon taking the majority back in 2010 was repealing paygo rules 
that required Congress to pay for our spending.
  What better way to cover up yesterday's fiscal malfeasance than to 
hide behind a cynical and hypocritical promise to be more fiscally 
responsible tomorrow?
  There are really only two possibilities here: either my Republican 
colleagues can't do simple math or something more sinister is going on. 
One thing is clear: Republicans have proven time and again that they 
don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
  When Republicans preach the virtues of fiscal responsibility, what 
they really mean is that they want to take away the Social Security, 
Medicare, and Medicaid benefits that millions of Americans have earned. 
That is not fiscal responsibility; that is moral cruelty.
  By creating a massive hole in the deficit with the Republican tax 
scam, this middle class con was the first step of a scheme to undermine 
Social Security and Medicare. This disgraceful amendment being 
considered today is the second step.
  We have seen this movie before. Republicans followed the budget-
busting Bush tax cuts for the wealthy with an attempt to privatize 
Social Security and they followed the budget-busting Bush recession 
with an attempt to voucherize Medicare.

  The best way to clean up the fiscal mess made by my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle is to repeal the Republican tax scam. We do not 
need to amend the Constitution, and we must not force their fiscal mess 
to be cleaned up at the cost of our seniors' health and dignity.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment and to keep 
fighting against the Republicans' perpetual crusade to break the 
promises we have made to our seniors.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).
  Mr. SMUCKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Chairman Goodlatte's 
balanced budget amendment.
  Clearly, the status quo here in Congress is failing the American 
people, and real change is needed. Our budget process is broken, and a 
balanced budget amendment is exactly the mechanism we need to force the 
decisions to get our fiscal house in order.
  Congress has passed more than 100 continuing resolutions just in the 
last 20 years. We move from one continuing resolution and one omnibus 
to the next.
  I knew when I came to Congress that the Federal budget process wasn't 
working as intended. From the outside, it doesn't look good. Now having 
served on the Budget Committee for more than a year, I can say it 
doesn't look any better from the inside.
  The latest omnibus supported a number of provisions, like funding our 
military, fighting the opioid epidemic, agricultural reform, school 
safety measures, measures that I support, but these priorities can and 
must be achieved in a fiscally responsible manner that doesn't grow the 
size of the Federal Government.
  How do I know we can achieve that? Because we took steps in that 
direction on the Budget Committee. Last year, the committee passed a 
budget that would balance in 10 years. It was a fiscally responsible 
path towards funding critical government programs, but that budget 
isn't enforceable and no one is accountable.
  So I think the first step is to pass this balanced budget amendment 
here in the House. It is long past time that Congress finally put an 
end to irresponsible spending, saddling our children and grandchildren 
with an insurmountable debt.
  This amendment would make balancing the budget the norm rather than 
the exception. It would codify Congress' responsibility to be good 
stewards of taxpayer dollars.
  There are numerous proposals to reform our Federal budget process, 
some that I have introduced myself, but I believe this amendment would 
be the most meaningful budget and spending reform that we could enact. 
It works for the States, it works in Pennsylvania, and it will work for 
Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Goodlatte for his leadership. Every 
Congress since 2007, he has introduced this amendment to balance our 
Federal Government. It is an important effort and one that he has led.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel), the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign 
Affairs Committee.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 2, the 
disgraceful so-called balanced budget amendment.
  You know, it has been said again and again on this side of the aisle, 
but I think it warrants saying it even more. The Republicans passed 
their tax bill for the wealthiest 1 percent, which blew tremendous 
holes into the deficit. So coming here now a few months later and 
purporting to be concerned about

[[Page H3171]]

the rising deficit, I mean, the actions are different than the words, 
because the Republican tax scam blew a hole in the deficit, made it 
very difficult.
  So if you really want to change and you really want to have a 
balanced budget, the way to do it is to sit down with both sides and 
try to figure out a way to do it that is equitable, not something that 
only helps 1 percent and has devastating cuts for the rest of 
Americans.
  So the Republican tax cuts will balloon the Federal deficit by nearly 
$2 million over the next decade.
  Again, this is not about balancing the budget. This is an attempt to 
push an extreme agenda that will result in disastrous cuts to vital 
programs that benefit Americans. Medicare would be cut by $200 billion 
by 2025, Medicaid and healthcare subsidies by $150 billion, Social 
Security by $325 billion, and veterans' disability compensation would 
be cut by up to $30 billion.
  Not only will this hurt the elderly, our veterans, and the sick, but 
this dangerous amendment will also tie the hands of the Federal 
Government and make it impossible for Congress to respond to urgent 
matters of national security, like natural disasters, like 
international security crises--we on the Foreign Affairs Committee are 
always worried about that, obviously--or a dramatic turndown in the 
economy. We won't be able to react to this.
  So this amendment makes future increases in the debt limit nearly 
impossible, threatening the full faith and credit of our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure and work 
together to find responsible solutions to create jobs, reduce the 
deficit, and take care of the American people.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Comer).
  Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, when many of us were growing up learning how 
to use our first spare dollars or our first credit card, our parents 
and teachers always told us, ``Budget your money and don't spend more 
than you have.''
  This is a simple, commonsense life lesson we are all taught at some 
time or another when we are growing up. It is a reality for any 
individual who wants to have a sustainable future. It is unfortunate, 
however, that the same rules do not apply for Congress, our Nation's 
largest and most important spender.

  The United States currently faces $20 trillion in debt, which will 
lead us to a fiscal crisis if unabated. Year after year, our mandatory 
spending levels increase, leaving little room for our defense, 
education, and other spending priorities.
  If we continue down this path, it is estimated that by 2040, spending 
for mandatory programs will make up 81 percent of our annual budget. 
This trajectory of runaway mandatory spending is skyrocketing our 
national debt.
  It is evident that this Congress has not taken the necessary steps to 
balance the Federal budget.
  It is time that this Congress make the tough decisions necessary to 
reduce the national debt and practice restrained spending.
  Representative Goodlatte's balanced budget amendment would require 
the President to submit an annual balanced budget to Congress and 
mandate that Congress cannot spend more money than it receives in 
revenue.
  The next steps we take to change our Federal spending behavior will 
impact future generations of this country. We owe it to our children 
and grandchildren, those who will inherit this great Nation, to address 
our national debt.
  I remain committed to reining in Federal spending and ensuring 
Americans' tax dollars are spent wisely, and I am proud to be a 
cosponsor of Representative Goodlatte's balanced budget amendment.
  Let's pass this commonsense measure and finally prioritize fiscal 
responsibility, and make smarter, more responsible Federal spending 
choices for the people of this Nation.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, in December, Republicans rushed, and I do mean rushed, 
sped to pass with little thought, debate, or consideration for the 
long-term impact, a tax overhaul that has since been exposed over and 
over again for its structural and fiscal flaws.
  Contrary to the false bill of goods that they are still marketing to 
the American people, this scam would shower wealthy households and big 
corporations with the dollars shaved off of the incomes of working 
Americans nationwide. It further widens the already gaping divide 
between the ultra rich and the middle class.
  In New Jersey, my constituents will be among those hardest hit as it 
guts the Federal deduction for State and local taxes, the exact 
opposite of the cuts and breaks Republicans have given so much lip 
service to.

                              {time}  1345

  Now, months after patting themselves on the back, Republicans are 
backtracking. It seems that, on second thought, lining the pockets of 
millionaires and corporations to the tune of $1.5 trillion isn't a 
sound fiscal decision, and to fix it, they decided to revive the so-
called balanced budget amendment.
  To be very clear, this isn't about fiscal responsibility. This is 
just another scam, hoodwinking working Americans as they cut, slash, 
and burn away the programs and services that keep families going, that 
help keep food on the table during rough spells, and that maintain 
basic living standards and help people find jobs.
  To save the cuts they made for millionaires, they will use this 
amendment to slash healthcare access and the retirement security of our 
seniors through cuts to Social Security and Medicare.
  To save the cuts they made for millionaires, they will use this 
amendment to cut employment insurance, early childhood education, and 
nutrition programs.
  To save the cuts they made for millionaires, they will use this 
amendment to wreak havoc for working families.
  Instead of more cuts, we should be focused on investments that will 
produce jobs and economic growth, building new roads and bridges, 
ensuring workers make decent wages, and giving our young people the 
best chance at a good education and a bright future.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this so-called balanced budget 
amendment and the harm it represents.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Gianforte).
  Mr. GIANFORTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, and I appreciate 
his leadership on this critical issue.
  Washington doesn't have a revenue problem. Washington has a spending 
problem, plain and simple, and it is past time we get our fiscal house 
in order.
  The last time the Federal Government ran a budget surplus was about 
two decades ago. At the time, the economy was growing, unemployment was 
low, and Republicans controlled Congress. In 1997, Republicans cut 
spending and taxes, and for the next 4 years, the Federal Government 
ran a surplus.
  Since that time, Washington has failed to live within its means. The 
national debt stood at $5.8 trillion in 2001. Since then, it has nearly 
quadrupled to more than $21 trillion.
  But this issue isn't just about the numbers. Ultimately, our kids and 
grandkids will pay for the Federal spending we are not willing to pay 
for today. We shouldn't force future generations to pick up the tab for 
Washington's voracious spending appetite.
  The sobering truth is that, if we fail to make the necessary spending 
reforms today, we will face a fiscal crisis. The only way out of such a 
fiscal crisis would be punishing tax increases and drastic cuts to 
essential government programs.
  It is time we take action to bring fiscal discipline to Washington 
and avert a fiscal crisis. If you are in a hole, the quickest way out 
is to stop digging. Amending the Constitution to require a balanced 
budget is how we quit digging. The amendment will force the Federal 
Government to face the reality that households and small businesses 
face every day: you can't spend more than you make.
  Let's get on the record here. Should the Federal Government balance 
its

[[Page H3172]]

budget? Should it live within its means like hardworking Americans who 
make tough decisions about how they make ends meet?
  The answer is yes, which is why I have cosponsored and will vote for 
the balanced budget amendment. I encourage my colleagues to vote for 
this resolution and begin to get our fiscal house in order.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, this morning, at the House Armed Services 
Committee, Secretary James Mattis applauded the bipartisan 
collaboration and demonstrated political courage for lifting the 
spending caps of sequestration so that the military readiness of this 
country could catch up with the huge demands that are happening in 
terms of our national security.
  I cite that reference this morning because, in looking at this 
balanced budget constitutional amendment, a FOX News reporter described 
the effect of this is that ``a balanced budget requirement would be 
sequestration amped up on a cocktail of anabolic steroids and fiscal 
fentanyl.''
  If people worried about the U.S. military over the last 4 years since 
the Budget Control Act was passed because of sequestration, they should 
not vote for this balanced budget amendment because it is not only a 
straitjacket, it is a straitjacket with a constitutional lock that 
would freeze Congress' ability to provide the resources to defend our 
Nation.
  Again, just look at the sequence of what happened in terms of 
sequestration and the damage it did to our country, and listen to what 
that FOX News analyst said that it would do to our national defense and 
to our country's ability to address its basic needs and kill Social 
Security and Medicare, which will be the target if this ever were to 
pass.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling), chairman of the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
also thank him for his friendship, and I thank him for his leadership 
in fiscal sanity.
  Along with Chairman Goodlatte, I will be leaving Congress at the end 
of this year. Serving in Congress has been the greatest privilege of my 
life, but I leave with one great regret, and that regret is my 
inability to convince my colleagues of the peril of ignoring the debt 
trajectory this Nation is on. We cannot continue to spend money we do 
not have.
  Mr. Speaker, my iPad is awash--awash--of reports about how our 
spending trajectory is unsustainable. CBO, OMB, private foundations, 
they all conclude the same thing: the picture of national bankruptcy is 
ugly.
  It wasn't that many years ago that we saw it in Greece. We saw soup 
kitchens, padlocked factories, hospitals that could no longer turn on 
the lights, college-educated people forced into subsistence 
agriculture.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't think America is going to be Greece. I wish I 
knew it for a fact. But here is what I do know: if we don't quit 
spending money we don't have, we will become a second-rate economic 
power, a second-rate military power, and, frankly, a second-rate 
authority, moral authority, as we become the first generation in 
America's history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of 
living. That simply is not unintelligent; that is immoral.
  Can we have that stain on our record for generations to come?
  Mr. Speaker, frankly, I wish we were debating a spending limit 
amendment today, which is my preference; but at least the balanced 
budget amendment is a fair fight so that we at least do not mortgage 
our children's future, our grandchildren's future.
  Again, there is a moral imperative. We know what Churchill once said 
about us, and that is:

       Americans can usually be counted on to do the right thing 
     once they have exhausted every other possibility.

  It is a humorous comment for a situation that is not humorous. We 
cannot wait. This is the most foreseeable crisis in America's future.
  Today we can make history. Today we can ensure that we show fidelity 
to our Founding Fathers and to future generations and, for once, going 
forward, ensure that it is enshrined in our most sacred document that 
we balance the budget and do not mortgage our children's future.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, like some stormy sermon from Trump on the 
virtues of chastity, I believe these House Republicans today really do 
deserve a gold medal for hypocrisy.
  After approving their budget-busting, trickle-down, trillion-dollar 
tax break and refusing to pay a dime for their huge increase in 
military spending, they have the audacity to advance a balanced budget 
amendment. Choosing words over deeds, they shamelessly preach the 
gospel of ``do what I say, not what I do.''
  I have already voted for a balanced budget when I voted for not going 
into an unnecessary war without paying anything for it.
  I voted for a balanced budget when I voted to reject the distorted 
Republican theology that, when it comes to taxes, less always means 
more. The more tax cut theology has proven wrong over and over and over 
again. Republicans keep demanding just one more tax cut to drive us 
ever deeper into debt.
  Dripping in red ink, this newest Trump tax bill that he is promoting 
right now at the White House certainly validates his boast that he is 
the ``King of Debt,'' and these House Republicans are his supplicants.
  Our children and our grandchildren are being saddled with over $2 
trillion in debt just because of this one bill, all so that Trump, his 
wealthy buddies, and a few multinational corporations, can receive a 
tax windfall.
  For Trump and his congressional enablers, fiscal responsibility is 
just a hollow political slogan that they use to undermine the vital 
education, healthcare, and retirement security initiatives, like 
Medicare, that they have always not truly supported. They would surely 
let Medicare ``wither on the vine,'' to use the words of one the King 
of Debt's loudest troubadours.
  Reject this proposal.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson), and I ask unanimous consent 
that he may control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).
  Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support 
of H.J. Res. 2 and to thank Chairman Goodlatte for his leadership on 
this really critically important issue.
  Washington is broken. After years of excessive spending and wasteful 
stimulus projects, our national debt now tops $21 trillion. That is 
more than $60,000 for each and every American. This is unsustainable. 
But we are here to pass a resolution, the balanced budget amendment. 
This is a solution to this $21 trillion debt.
  Simply put, this amendment means Washington can't spend more than it 
takes in. It means Congress has to live within a budget, just like 
families in West Virginia. Families every day have to make careful 
choices about how to best spend their money. It is time for the Federal 
Government to do the same.
  I am a proud cosponsor of this resolution and urge my colleagues to 
vote ``yes'' later today for a balanced budget amendment. It is time to 
get our fiscal house in order.
  Pass this resolution. Pass the balanced budget amendment. Let's get 
our fiscal house in order. The American people are depending on us.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) will control the time of the gentleman from New 
York.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly), a scholar and a gentleman.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, there is a word for what we are witnessing 
today, and that word is ``chutzpah.''
  The majority is proposing a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States just months after passing the Trump 
tax scheme, which

[[Page H3173]]

the Congressional Budget Office warned would increase the deficit by 
$1.6 trillion over 10 years. So having broken the bank and spent their 
way into default, they now want a balanced budget amendment to protect 
all the rest of us.

                              {time}  1400

  Like I said, chutzpah. One would think such devoted Reaganites might 
have learned the lesson already.
  The majority has once again asked the American people to stomach a 
massive deficit increase on the hope and the prayer that tax decreases 
will pay for themselves.
  That is the same trickle-down narrative we heard in the Reagan years 
and the Bush years, and it didn't work then, and it is not going to 
work now.
  The 1981 tax cuts were so disastrous, for example, for Federal 
deficits, that Presidents Regan and Bush, Sr., had to enact legislation 
to raise taxes to make up for the shortfall in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1987, 
and 1990.
  Other than that, yeah, tax cuts pay for themselves.
  When President Obama took office, he inherited a deficit of more than 
$1.5 trillion in the depths of the Great Recession that President Bush 
gave him. That deficit was cut by more than two-thirds in President 
Obama's tenure in office.
  By this time next year, however, the Republican tax policy and 
President Trump's policies will have doubled the deficit in just the 
first 2 years.
  This level of fiscal irresponsibility could rival that of the Bush 
years, when we went from a surplus to a deficit, from a $128 billion 
surplus to a deficit of $1.16 trillion.
  Trickle-down theories don't work. They are a bad experiment for the 
American people. I urge rejection on the grounds of intellectual 
honesty and integrity of this balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, as virtually every American now understands, Washington 
is broken.
  For years, Congress has spent irresponsibly and with what seems to be 
little or no thought for how it might affect future generations.
  We are passing along a bill that our children and grandchildren may 
never be able to pay, and it is as immoral as it is unsustainable.
  Meanwhile, our Nation's top military officials have repeatedly warned 
Congress that the number one threat to our national security is our 
debt.
  We have no choice now but to correct this wrong and institute 
policies that promote fiscal responsibility.
  Currently, our national debt exceeds $20 trillion, and the number 
increases every second. Mr. Speaker, when I do townhalls back home, I 
put the debt clock up on the screen very often and allow our 
constituents to watch that clock toll. It is frightening.
  The last omnibus package, which is a whopping 2,232 pages in length, 
allocated another $1.3 trillion. That is about $582 million of Federal 
spending per page.
  Our government is out of control, and we have to put an end to the 
dangerous and clearly excessive spending patterns that are coming out 
of Washington and out of this body.
  As I have said on more than one occasion, people all across America 
sit down at their kitchen tables and create budgets for their families. 
Small businesses make countless sacrifices to manage their balance 
sheets. And our government should act no differently.
  We cannot continue to spend money we don't have and drive ourselves 
further into the debt of hostile nations like China, who is the primary 
creditor in holding all of our debt.
  Passing a balanced budget amendment is a commonsense solution that 
will put us back on the right track and restore fiscal sanity to the 
Congress.
  The balanced budget amendment will ensure our government acts as a 
good steward of America's tax dollars, not only today, but for all the 
days in the future. It has the potential to make the bloated budgets of 
Washington a thing of the past.
  Opponents of this amendment will say that passing this will force 
serious cuts to our budget. And to that we respond and say: Of course 
it will. We simply cannot get out of the hole that we have created 
without making tough decisions. But that is our job. That is why we are 
elected as the duly elected representatives of the people.
  Right now, our country faces a point of no return with our debt, and 
there should be nothing controversial about telling our Federal 
Government to act within its means. This is simply about aligning and 
agreeing upon our top priorities.
  Thomas Jefferson said that the representatives of a nation should 
never take on more debt than they themselves can pay in their own 
lifetime.
  We abandoned that principle a long time ago, and, unfortunately, we 
have already far exceeded that amount in this body and in our lifetime, 
and it is now our moral obligation to right this wrong.
  This is really about who we are as Americans, if you listen to the 
Founders. That is why I urge my colleagues to support the balanced 
budget amendment to the Constitution, and help restore and preserve the 
American Dream for our children and for all future generations.
  We owe that to the country. Fiscal sanity, responsibility, and good 
stewardship is why we were sent here, and it is what we must do.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Members that my 
Republican Senator Bob Corker said that this Congress will go down in 
history as the worst fiscal Congress in history for having voted for 
both the tax scam bill and the big cuts for the wealthy.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 
2.
  We often get distracted by debating the title of a proposed 
constitutional amendment without getting into serious discussion about 
whether or not the specific provisions will actually help balance the 
budget.
  If we are ever going to balance the budget, the fact is it is going 
to require Members to cast some tough votes, and many of these votes 
will be career-ending votes, and a constitutional amendment calling 
itself the balanced budget amendment cannot change that reality.

  Meaningful deficit reduction is politically difficult, and it is 
ironic that the Republican majority seems suddenly concerned about the 
deficit and balancing the budget. They must have forgotten that just 4 
months ago they voted for a $1.5 trillion tax scam that gave massive 
handouts to big corporations and the wealthiest 1 percent.
  They repeatedly claimed that these tax cuts would pay for themselves, 
but last week the Congressional Budget Office told the truth, 
estimating that their tax scam will add almost $2 trillion to our 
national debt.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the most consequential votes I cast early in my 
career was the 1993 Clinton budget. That budget included tax increases 
and spending cuts, many of which were very unpopular at the time, but 
it was the fiscally responsible thing to do. Not one Republican voted 
for the 1993 Clinton budget.
  Needless to say, the 1993 budget was a tough vote, but it helped 
create over 20 million jobs, the stock market more than tripled, it led 
to the first balanced budget in a generation, and, by the end of the 
Clinton administration, it included projected surpluses large enough to 
have paid off the entire national debt held by the public by 2008.
  But it also contributed to 50 House Democrats losing their seats in 
the next election.
  As soon as the Republicans took control of the Federal Government in 
2001 with the White House, House, and Senate, they passed massive tax 
cuts, not paying for them; fought two wars, didn't pay for it; passed a 
prescription drug benefit, didn't pay for it. So by 2008, instead of 
zero national debt held by the public, the debt was $5.8 trillion.
  So now we have the balanced budget amendment, and the problem is that 
the balanced budget amendment will not balance the budget.
  The fact is that the major provision in this legislation is the 
requirement that if a budget is unbalanced, it requires a three-fifths 
vote, and the fact is that this proposal will actually make it 
virtually impossible to ever pass a fiscally tough deficit reduction 
plan similar to the 1993 Clinton budget.
  That budget wasn't balanced in the first year, and, under this 
proposed

[[Page H3174]]

amendment, instead of a simple majority, it would require a three-
fifths supermajority in the House and the Senate.
  The fact is, it should be obvious that any tough deficit reduction 
plan will be unbalanced in the first year, and so it will be harder to 
pass by requiring a three-fifths supermajority than a simple majority.
  The question is: Will that supermajority make it more likely that we 
would end up with a fiscally responsible budget or a fiscally 
irresponsible budget?
  Obviously, it is more likely that we would pass a fiscally 
irresponsible Christmas tree budget where every Member gets a present 
under the tree than it would be to get enough career-ending votes to 
meet the three-fifths requirement under this legislation.
  And note that this amendment places no limit on how far out of 
balance the budget can be once you get to three-fifths.
  Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't be distracted by the resolution's 
misleading title. Balancing the budget will require tough votes, not 
constitutional amendments. My colleagues must seriously consider 
whether the resolution's actual provisions will help or hurt.
  It is obvious it would make it virtually impossible to pass any kind 
of balanced budget or responsible budget; therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask 
my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Handel).
  Mrs. HANDEL. Mr. Speaker, let me first begin by commending Chairman 
Goodlatte and my colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee for their 
hard work on this important issue.
  I have been in Congress just 10 months, but I have already seen 
firsthand that the budget process is fundamentally broken.
  While I supported the funding measures under this broken process, I 
did so with reluctance. But both parties--both parties--have brought us 
to this place with the severe fiscal challenges that we face today. But 
balancing our budget is not, should not be, a partisan issue.
  Across the country, virtually every State has a balanced budget 
requirement, and Governors and legislatures of both parties meet that 
requirement. Congress should too.
  Ultimately, balanced budgets are about accountability. We must hold 
the Federal Government and Congress accountable and insist that the 
overall budget be managed in a fiscally responsible way. The status 
quo, the same old kick-the-can-down-the-road, we-will-get-to-it-next-
time approach is simply no longer an option.
  Big problems require tough choices. Every day that we continue to 
borrow and assume more debt, our decisions get all the more difficult, 
and the solutions all the more catastrophic.
  This balanced budget amendment is only a first step, but a much-
needed step, to improving the fiscal state of our Nation.
  Our current path is unsustainable. Sooner than most realize, this 
path will not even allow us to continue to meet the promises already 
made to the American people.
  ``Don't spend more than you earn.'' That is what I was taught. And 
that is what families across this country do every single day.
  It is time for Congress to do the same, Mr. Speaker. I ask my 
colleagues to support this balanced budget amendment, not for the sake 
of politics, but rather for the sake of the future of this country and 
generations to come.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, who is always so generous and kind.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, there aren't too many of us here on the 
floor today who were here in 1996, when I supported a balanced budget 
amendment. It did pass the House. It failed by one vote in the Senate.

  Had it become law, George Bush could not have invaded Iraq and 
simultaneously cut taxes and blown the projected surplus into a huge 
deficit and debt.
  But here we are today.
  Now, this debate was actually scheduled for April 1. You know, April 
Fools' Day. But the House was on its Easter recess, so this is as soon 
as they could bring it up on the floor.
  But it is an April fool. This is an April fool.
  Now, we had one colleague call it chutzpah. I was trying to think of 
ways to describe it: dissimulation, insincerity, false piousness, 
hypocrisy.
  Not this balanced budget amendment; not at this time.
  They have just cut revenues by $3 trillion. We are projecting a 
deficit of $1 trillion in 2 years, and they are saying they want to cut 
taxes more.
  Well, then that means something else has got to go. And Speaker Ryan 
has already talked about what the something else is. It is Medicare, 
Social Security, and Medicaid. Those are the things that have got to 
go.
  Well, there is a dirty, little secret about Social Security. I was 
actually using this on 9/11. I will have to get an updated version.
  But there actually is a Social Security trust fund, and this is a 
depository instrument for the Social Security trust fund, and it is 
here backed by the full faith and credit of the government of the 
United States of America to be paid to the Federal Old-age and 
Survivors Insurance Fund.
  There are $3 trillion that have been collected from every working 
American in the Social Security trust fund.
  Now, we have an aging population. There is a problem, but it could be 
fixed. But the point is, under this amendment, if it was law today, 
Social Security benefits would be cut today because, under this 
amendment, Social Security could only spend its income, which this year 
was $40 billion less than its outlays.

                              {time}  1415

  What did it do? It cashed in some of its $3 trillion of assets and 
they paid full Social Security benefits.
  So if this little dream that they have here going passed, every 
American would have seen their Social Security reduced by $643 this 
year, and every year that number would grow, while the $3 trillion 
already collected from the American people to pay benefits would never 
be paid out. Talk about false promises to the American people. That is 
one heck of a false promise.
  I have introduced a balanced budget amendment that makes a little 
more sense. It can't have these OCO, overseas contingency operation, 
funds where we shower $50 billion, $100 billion on the Pentagon, and it 
doesn't count. We are borrowing the money. It is creating debt, but it 
doesn't count. It is off budget. Don't worry about it.
  Under my amendment, unless you had a declared war, unless Congress 
had the guts to declare a war when we have to fight someone overseas, 
you couldn't have that kind of overseas contingency operation fund and 
do money off the books.
  My balanced budget amendment also would protect the Social Security 
and Medicare trust funds from those who would rob from that trust fund 
and begin to immediately reduce benefits for Social Security and 
Medicare.
  This is a ruse. Talk about the most drunken sailor spending money and 
then, whoa, I have got a wicked headache. Let's pass a balanced budget 
amendment. Maybe that will cure it. It ain't going to cure it. We need 
fiscal responsibility around here, and it has got to be a balance of 
rescinding some of their obscene tax cuts--$3 trillion worth--which 
would go a long way toward helping move us toward a balanced budget, 
and imposing a little fiscal discipline on the Pentagon.
  The Pentagon has yet to be audited. The only agency of the Federal 
Government that cannot be audited happens to get the largest, single 
discretionary grant of money every year. Once, I did manage to pass an 
amendment on the floor with Representative Frelinghuysen to require an 
audit. Guess what? That disappeared in the conference committee because 
the Pentagon can't be audited, doesn't want to be audited, and they 
just need more money. Don't worry, they will spend it wisely.
  So let's talk about real fiscal discipline around here, real balance, 
and a real balanced budget amendment that protects the assets of the 
Social Security trust fund and Medicare.
  The people don't care about that. They want to kill it.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).

[[Page H3175]]

  

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend my strong support for this balanced 
budget amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, the very first bill I introduced when the 115th Congress 
kicked off last year was a balanced budget amendment. With the national 
debt at over $21 trillion, it is no secret that the Federal Government 
has a spending issue.
  Before coming to Congress, I served in the Alabama State Legislature. 
Like many States, Alabama is required to pass a budget that does not 
spend more than we have. We do it each year.
  A balanced budget is not some far-flung idea. Families in southwest 
Alabama and all around the country sit around the kitchen table and 
figure out how to make ends meet. Small businesses face the exact same 
challenges. The Federal Government should be required to play by the 
same rules.
  I want to be clear about a few things. First, despite what my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe, the answer to our 
debt issue is not to tax the American people more. We do not have a tax 
problem. We have a spending problem.
  Second, the most serious drivers of the national debt are on 
autopilot. So-called mandatory spending programs must be reined in, and 
a balanced budget amendment would finally require Congress to tackle 
those programs head on.
  Mr. Speaker, I know passing a balanced budget would be hard, but I 
didn't run for Congress because I thought the job would be easy. We 
were elected by our neighbors to make difficult choices and decisions.
  We can make a strong step in the right direction by passing this 
balanced budget amendment, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me 
in supporting this resolution today.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, government is and should be about more than just dollars 
and cents. Government, and especially democratic government, is about 
nurturing community, taking care of one another, and defending our 
common humanity.
  H.J. Res. 2, proposing a constitutional amendment requiring a 
balanced budget every fiscal year strikes sharply against those core 
values, as much that we see in government these days does.
  A balanced budget amendment undermines our commitment to each other, 
as expressed through critical social safety-net programs like the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP; Medicare; Medicaid; 
and Social Security. My constituents in my congressional district of 
Tennessee and millions of vulnerable Americans nationwide depend on 
these and other programs to make ends meet in difficult economic 
circumstances.
  Therefore, it concerns me greatly that this Congress, which 
hypocritically passed massive tax giveaways to corporations and the 
superwealthy, has chosen to devote its limited time to what is 
essentially a gimmick to avoid actually making politically difficult 
decisions about the Federal budget.
  Just this week, my Tennessee colleague, respected Senator Bob Corker, 
called out his fellow Republicans when he tweeted: ``If we were serious 
about balancing the budget, we would do it. But instead of doing the 
real work, some will push this symbolic measure so they can feel good 
when they go home to face voters.''

  I wear on my lapel the letter ``F.'' That is the grade that Bob 
Corker and I give this Congress for its work toward balancing a budget: 
trillions of dollars of debt with tax giveaways to the wealthiest, 
trillions of dollars of debt with a budget that gives the Pentagon $70 
billion more than they want.
  A balanced budget is nothing but an attempt to shortcut government, 
and it would impose real harm on millions of Americans. Social safety-
net programs would be at particular risk if a balanced budget amendment 
were to be adopted because they are funded every year by drawing on 
savings accumulated in prior years.
  And let's be real about what is going on. After giving tax breaks to 
the wealthiest and corporations, after giving away massive budget 
amounts, particularly to defense, they want a balanced budget 
amendment. How would they balance the budget? On Medicare, on Social 
Security, and on Medicaid. On people who are ill and seniors who need 
money to live on and healthcare to keep their lives going. That is who 
this cruel Congress would say the balanced budget amendment falls on. 
They would be on the chopping block.
  This funding mechanism ensures that benefits could be paid to those 
who need them and provides the opportunity to stave off funding 
shortfalls before they occur.
  The state of the Department of Justice is another example, given 
President Trump's sharp political attacks on General Sessions out of 
frustration with his recusal from any investigation concerning Russia's 
interference in our Presidential election. Voter suppression efforts, 
the resurgence of white nationalists in American politics, and the 
active efforts to undermine the work of a free press are other 
meaningful topics worthy of our attention; issues that are important to 
the American public, not a balanced budget amendment that won't come 
into existence and will harm the American people.
  I strongly oppose the idea of a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution because it threatens Social Security, Medicare, and 
Medicaid; it threatens SNAP; it threatens programs that keep people 
alive and make their existence tolerable. Many constituents of mine 
depend on these and many in America do.
  The House has better things to devote its time to. I strongly oppose 
H.J. Res. 2, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker), the 
distinguished chair of our Republican Study Committee.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Our national debt stands at over $21 trillion. This is not a surprise 
to anybody. It should frighten us enough to immediately alter the 
behavior of this House.
  Congress approved the largely unpaid $1.3 trillion omnibus, several 
supplementals, and exploded 2 years of spending caps all in the last 
few months. Unsustainable, mandatory, and undisciplined discretionary 
spending designed decades ago has created a debt monster that is 
seemingly unstoppable.
  Over the last few months, we have heard a great deal with our 
Democratic friends and their newfound concern about the rising deficits 
and debt. So my question is: How many would join us in supporting the 
balanced budget amendment?
  Many Democratic Members in the past were willing to vote for what 49 
out of 50 States already have, a balanced budget. In fact, in 1996, a 
balanced budget amendment garnered 72 Democratic votes in the House, 
including our esteemed colleague across the aisle, Mr. Hoyer.
  In 2011, the same version we are voting on today got 25 Democrat 
votes in support. I wonder how many have the courage to support it now. 
We know what it takes. We should roll back wasteful spending, including 
rescinding appropriations that aren't needed. We need to reform our 
entitlement programs, including getting able-bodied adults back to 
work. This is about hope, not judgment.
  Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
amendment that is our moral obligation to ensure the American Dream 
remains attainable for our children and for future generations.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First, the Republicans passed a tax scam that blows a $2 trillion 
hole in the budget and gives 83 percent of its tax cuts to the 
wealthiest among us and corporate CEOs.
  Then they offer a budget that would fill that gap by cutting more 
than $2 trillion in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and even 
programs like Meals on Wheels. And now, they want to amend our 
Constitution to require a balanced budget.
  We know how the Republicans plan to balance the budget--on the backs 
of seniors. We have seen this movie before--budget after budget that 
cuts Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid;

[[Page H3176]]

budgets that leave seniors without their earned benefits or access to 
long-term care; budgets that privatize the Veterans Administration and 
Medicare; providing vouchers and not health benefits; that raise the 
age of eligibility for Medicare and Social Security; that cap and slash 
Medicaid, the largest source of long-term care. And no wonder seniors 
groups are raising the alarm.
  Under this resolution, the AARP says: ``Social Security and Medicare 
would cease to provide a predictable source of financial and health 
security in retirement.''
  The Alliance for Retired Americans calls it ``irresponsible'' and 
``extremely harmful to older Americans.''
  The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare says 
it ``would force severe cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, 
and other vital Federal programs.''
  The Strengthen Social Security Coalition says: ``We regard a vote for 
the balanced budget amendment as a vote to cut Social Security, as well 
as Medicare and Medicaid.''

  When Paul Ryan announced his retirement yesterday, he said before he 
leaves, he hopes that he is going to be able to go after these 
retirements and entitlements and cut them: Social Security and 
Medicare. This has already been announced. This is the future if we let 
it happen. We need to vote ``no.''
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, on my first day serving in this 
Congress, I introduced a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, 
and I am honored to be cosponsoring the resolution on the floor today.
  As I travel back home in my district, I get this question--as I am 
sure so many of my colleagues do--I am repeatedly asked, why doesn't 
Congress manage the national budget the same way businesses manage 
their budget and families manage their budget? Why doesn't Congress 
follow the same rules that businesses and families do, that we only 
spend what we generate in revenues?
  And it is a good question, Mr. Speaker, which gets us to the need for 
a balanced budget amendment. One would think that we would not need to 
amend the Constitution to do what Members of this body should be doing 
anyway.
  This is common sense, Mr. Speaker. But for decades, we have seen the 
problem perpetuate, which is the responsibility of both parties. I am 
convinced this is the only mechanism to force this body to balance the 
budget. We are $21 trillion in debt, Mr. Speaker.
  To my friends voicing opposition, we need to be honest about what 
this resolution does. This resolution does not necessitate any cuts of 
any kind. It simply requires that the budget balance. A commitment to 
raising revenues through progrowth economic policies is the answer. And 
that is what this resolution will force this body to do: raise revenues 
to offset expenditures on a dollar-for-dollar basis.
  Mr. Speaker, prior to this Congress, our economy was sluggishly 
growing at about 1.6 growth in GDP, which is fiscally and financially 
unsustainable. We are now well over 2 percent, on our way to 3 percent, 
and we need to get to 4 percent.
  As one of only a handful of CPAs in this Congress, I know that 
economic growth has three essential components: tax reform, regulatory 
reform, and a balanced budget. When you balance the books, you create 
jobs, which leads to more revenue, which leads to an expanding economy, 
making it easier for us to fund our critical priorities, like serving 
our veterans, protecting our troops, funding public education, and 
preserving our environment.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what this resolution is about. And that is why I 
am proud to cosponsor this legislation.
  This is common sense, Mr. Speaker. The American people want this by 
overwhelming margins. We need to get this done for them. It is our 
moral responsibility.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to say, Mr. Fitzpatrick got the award 
from the American Bar Association for his good work on legal services, 
and I compliment him on that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Neal).
  (Mr. NEAL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for 
yielding.
  The previous speaker said that we really shouldn't have to do this, 
and the answer is that we don't have to do this. Bill Clinton proved on 
four occasions that you can balance the budget. It has only been done 
five times since the end of World War II. So what we really should be 
calling this legislation that is in front of us today is the ``Jesse 
James Seeks Clemency Act.''
  We are here because of their tax cuts: Invade Iraq, let's have a tax 
cut. Invade Afghanistan, let's have a tax cut. The tax cut is the 
answer to everything.
  The last round, let's borrow $2.3 trillion over 10 years before the 
Federal Reserve Board, by the way, has a chance to raise interest rates 
three times this year, as they predicted, for the purpose of providing 
a tax cut.
  Oh, by the way, how about that old song, ``Don't Worry Because Tax 
Cuts Pay for Themselves''? This is what we have heard here, and this is 
what has put us in this predicament that we are in: $20 trillion worth 
of debt.
  Now, here is the caveat that they always attach to these arguments, 
by the way: If there is a Democratic President, you need to balance the 
budget. If there is a Republican President, you don't need to balance 
the budget.
  Their spending priorities are keen. It is borrowed money to provide 
tax cuts for people at the very top, further concentrating wealth.
  Let me give you some numbers here that I have paid a lot of attention 
to over the years.
  On January 19, 2001, when Bill Clinton said good-bye, we were staring 
at a $5.6 trillion surplus, four balanced budgets, and record economic 
growth, the greatest economic growth spurt in the history of America, 
and a surplus of, again, $5.6 trillion.
  So what happened? We cut taxes over the objections of many of us in 
2001 by $1.3 trillion. Then we had a recession where we were losing 
800,000 jobs a month.
  Oh, by the way, in 2003, we came back and cut taxes again here by $1 
trillion, plus the bonus. Then they decided to do a repatriation tax 
holiday, and now they are here like this.
  My father used to have a great line. He used to say: At least Jesse 
James had enough respect to wear a mask.
  This is unbelievable that they would come in with a balanced budget 
amendment after what they have done repeatedly all of these years to 
wreck the budgets all under the guise of, if we simply cut taxes, 
everything will get better.
  The reason that this deficit is ballooning is not because of an 
increase in spending. Revenue as a percent of gross domestic product 
remains roughly at 17 percent to 18 percent. That is the postwar norm--
except for the end of the Bush W. years when revenue as a percent of 
gross domestic product went to 15 cents on the dollar because of the 
tax cuts and, by the way, increased spending for Iraq and Afghanistan.
  So let me remind our Republican friends of this: the priorities have 
been wrong. We could have reached an accord on these issues. But today, 
to do this, to bring forth a balanced budget amendment, we are going to 
disturb the Constitution of the United States to maybe get them through 
the next round of congressional elections, because that is all this is 
about.
  So the tax cuts are going to reduce revenue.
  Here is the footnote that you might want to pay some attention to: 83 
percent of this tax cut that they voted for--without one Democrat, 
incidentally, in the House supporting it--83 percent of the benefit is 
going to the top 1 percent of the wage earners in America.
  Then they found time, by the way, to double the exemption on the 
estate tax. So we are taking the estate tax from $11 million to $22 
million.
  Remember this about the estate tax: The estate tax is not a tax on 
Conrad Hilton. The estate tax is a tax on Paris Hilton. My God, who 
could be against that?
  When you think about how this has been pursued, it is all about 
concentrating more wealth at the very top for people who have said, 
``We don't need

[[Page H3177]]

it.'' There wasn't anybody beating down our doors in the top percentile 
of wage earners in America saying, ``Cut my taxes.''
  We could have reached an accord on the corporate rate. We could have 
done some things in a bipartisan manner to address some of these issues 
in making America competitive internationally. But, instead, they chose 
to do what they always do: Let's starve the Federal budget, and then 
say after we starve the Federal budget, ``Oh, by the way, we have got 
to cut Social Security.'' Let's starve the Federal budget of revenue 
and say, ``Oh, by the way, we have to cut Medicare''; and, oh, by the 
way, let's starve the Federal budget and say, ``We have got to get rid 
of Medicaid for people who need it.'' This is why we find ourselves 
with a $20 trillion debt.
  I will take the Clinton years and the Obama years compared to what 
they gave us in terms of Federal revenue forecasts.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weber of Texas). The time of the 
gentleman has expired.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Massachusetts an 
additional 1 minute.
  Mr. NEAL. CBO accountants came back the other day and said: Let us 
tell you right now what is wrong. They gave us hardcore numbers about 
economic growth, and they gave us hardcore numbers about debt and 
deficits.
  Do you know what the answer was? Let's not believe what they have to 
say. Let's not pay any attention to what they have to say because it 
doesn't square with the philosophy of tax cuts paying for themselves.
  So the last point is, if you voted for the tax cuts and you voted for 
the omnibus spending bill on the Republican side--because I know no 
Democrat voted for the tax cut--today, when you come in, you ought to 
wear a mask when you cast your vote because Jesse James would be 
honored.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the 
gentleman openly acknowledge that not a single Democrat voted for the 
tax cut. I am sure the American people would love to hear that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Jordan).
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, everyone knows this is a joke. It is all 
pretend and never going to become law. It is never going to happen. 
People are going to support it because voting for a balanced budget 
amendment is like voting for motherhood and apple pie. But everybody on 
this floor knows this is all pretend.
  The time to deal with spending was 3 weeks ago. Three weeks ago was 
the time for political courage and some discipline. Some political will 
was 3 weeks ago, when we got a 2,232-page bill that we had 15 hours to 
look at. That was when we needed to deal with spending.
  Fifteen hours to look at a $1.3 trillion spending package, the second 
largest spending package in American history, and we had 15 hours to 
look at it?
  Oh, and guess what. Do you know how long we got to debate it? One 
hour. On a 3-page bill that is never going to happen, do you know how 
long we are debating this? Four hours.
  The time for political courage was 3 weeks ago. The last vote we took 
before the Easter recess, $1.3 trillion of spending, funding things we 
as Republicans said we would never fund, not funding things we told the 
voters we were going to fund, and then we go home and we come back, and 
the first thing we do with 4 hours of debate--not 1, like we had on 
that bill--is a bill that is never going to happen.
  It is no wonder Americans hate this place. It is no wonder they are 
cynical. I don't blame them. This ticks me off. There is just no other 
way to say it. More importantly, it ticks off the American people, and 
it should.
  For the last 24 hours, everyone in this town has been focused on who 
is going to be the next Speaker. Let me tell you something, a much more 
important question than who is going to be the next Speaker, who is 
going to be the Speaker next year, is what are Republicans going to do 
this year? Are we going to get back to doing what the American people 
elected us to do on November 8, 2016? Are we going to get back to doing 
what we told them we were going to do, the mandate of that election, or 
are we going to keep doing pretend things like this?
  Let's do what we said. We make this so hard. Let's just do what we 
said we would do. That will be good politics, and, more importantly, 
that would be good policy for the hardworking families of this great 
country.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), who is the ranking member and future chairman 
of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, just months ago, we were debating the so-called Tax Cuts 
and Jobs Act. During that debate, I warned that it was the first of the 
Republicans' three-step plan to give to the wealthy and make 
hardworking families pay the price.
  Republicans were successful in enacting step one, the tax scam that 
gave more than 80 percent of the benefits to the top 1 percent. Just 
one company, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, is now pocketing $218 million more 
every week under this new law. They are not alone. These tax cuts are 
showering big corporations and Wall Street with taxpayer money at an 
obscene level. That was step one.
  Step two, exploding our deficits, was confirmed this week by the 
Congressional Budget Office. They concluded that the GOP tax cuts will 
add nearly $2 trillion to the Federal debt over the next decade.
  That brings us to step three. Having provided millionaires and big 
corporations with huge tax cuts that do little to grow our economy, the 
GOP has starved our government of revenues. So, naturally, they are 
using the resulting deficits as an excuse for massive cuts to programs 
that millions of Americans rely on, including Medicare, Social 
Security, and Medicaid.
  That is what the amendment we are now considering would do. It would 
put in place a constitutionally mandated process solely designed to 
impose these extreme cuts. That is because it comes packaged with the 
GOP's new religious belief that tax cuts for the rich will save us all. 
They believe this despite the fact that history and nearly every 
respected economist will tell you that the only way we can responsibly 
balance our budget is to include new revenues.
  So let's call this balanced budget amendment what it is: a stunt to 
give Republicans political cover for their deficit-exploding tax scam. 
The party of so-called fiscal hawks has become the party of fiscal 
hypocrites. They know it, and so do the American people.
  While this bill may be a political gimmick, it is a dangerous one 
that will have dire consequences for our economy and American families. 
To begin with, when in effect, it would require that the entire Federal 
budget this year be cut by at least 20 percent. That would be not just 
unprecedented, it would be devastating.
  Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, veterans' healthcare, 
infrastructure, job training, nutrition assistance, and programs that 
help make housing affordable and higher education attainable would all 
be jeopardized.
  But that is not all. This amendment would put an intolerable 
financial strain on every State in this country, forcing them to do 
more with less. My State of Kentucky relies on Federal funds to cover 
37 percent of the Commonwealth's budget, including 16 percent of 
education funding and 32 percent of transportation funding. Speaker 
Ryan's home State of Wisconsin relies on Federal funds to cover 24 
percent of its budget. Chairman Goodlatte's home State of Virginia 
relies on Federal funds to cover 20 percent. All of that is at risk 
under this amendment.
  It would not stop there. This amendment would not only threaten our 
ability to respond to economic crises, it would likely make them much 
worse. During economic downturns, Congress can help stimulate the 
economy by cutting taxes and increasing investments, as we did during 
the 2008 financial crisis. But if this amendment had been in place 
then, our economy would have been in serious jeopardy, facing a much 
higher risk of a full-on, prolonged depression and massive job losses. 
Should our country face another financial crisis, this amendment would 
be the worst policy at the worst time.

  So, in sum, this amendment would threaten the retirement security of

[[Page H3178]]

every senior who relies on Medicare or Social Security and every 
working American paying into these programs now. It jeopardizes every 
Federal program that helps our communities grow and hardworking 
families succeed. It places extreme financial strain on every State in 
the country, and it would make it much harder for our government to 
respond to crises or even function effectively. Other than that, it is 
a great idea.
  Mr. Speaker, this is terrible policy that ignores reality and real 
consequences and is purely intended to save Republicans' political rear 
ends.
  It is not just me making this case. Republican Senator Bob Corker 
stated recently: ``Republicans control the House, Senate, and White 
House. If we were serious about balancing the budget, we would do it. 
But instead of doing the real work, some will push this symbolic 
measure so they can feel good when they go home to face voters.''
  Well said, Senator Corker. If my Republican colleagues truly believe 
this is a good bill and that it is good for the American people, then 
it is time for them to go home.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes).
  Mr. ESTES of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. 
Res. 2, proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States.
  This proposal comes at a critical time for our country. Years of 
unchecked spending have led to massive deficits. At the same time, 
threats at home and abroad, crumbling infrastructure, and natural 
disasters have forced the government to do more. These two parallel 
situations require tough decisionmaking, but that is what the American 
people expect us to do.
  As I talk to constituents in my district, one of the issues they 
continually ask about is the ballooning Federal debt that will be 
passed on to their kids and grandkids.
  Hardworking Kansans have to balance their checkbook every month. I 
served as Kansas State Treasurer where we also had to balance our 
budget for the State of Kansas. I don't think there is any reason that 
the Federal Government should get a pass. That is why I am proud to 
support this resolution, which requires the government to spend within 
its means.
  During the past year, we have accomplished a lot to help families 
across America. Cutting regulations and passing the Tax Cuts and Jobs 
Act have helped get government out of the way and our economy growing. 
Workers are seeing bonuses and larger paychecks. Companies are 
reinvesting in America. This growth has allowed us to make significant 
investments in our military, disaster relief, agriculture, and other 
areas important to Kansans.

                              {time}  1445

  However, to build on this progress, we need time to implement 
policies that will protect future generations from crippling debt. This 
proposal is a great start and long overdue.
  Let me be clear: this is not a silver bullet. Balancing our budget 
and reducing our debt will require reforming our entitlement programs 
and prioritizing our spending. I also believe it will require recisions 
to the budget, and today I call on the President and the Congress to 
implement those spending cuts which would work towards our goal of 
fiscal responsibility and stability. This amendment and recisions are a 
needed start to that difficult, yet immensely important, task before 
us. The future of our country depends on it, and I urge my colleagues 
to support this resolution.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the leader, the once and future Speaker.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that Mr. Cohen is a member of 
the Judiciary Committee. This is a balanced budget amendment, and what 
is interesting is it is not coming by way of the Budget Committee, as 
you might suspect; it is coming by way of the Judiciary Committee 
because it intends to amend the Constitution of the United States. How 
sad.
  Mr. Speaker, as you know, Members of Congress take an oath to support 
and defend the Constitution. Yet this proposed amendment we are 
debating does great harm to our sacred founding document. This 
legislation is a brazen assault on seniors, children, and working 
families--the American people we were elected to protect.
  Make no mistake, this GOP con job has nothing to do with fiscal 
responsibility. It is not balanced in terms of money because of their 
GOP tax scam that has placed us in a bad spot fiscally, and it is not 
balanced in terms of values. To the Republicans, fiscal responsibility 
just means ransacking Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security and 
breaking our Nation's sacred promise of dignity and security for 
seniors and families.
  Republicans like to pat themselves on the back and pay lip service to 
the principle of fiscal responsibility. In fact, the deficit hawks have 
either become an endangered species or extinct. They don't seem to 
exist in this Republican House of Representatives. It may be 
counterintuitive to the public, but Democrats have always been the ones 
who have fought to put our fiscal house in order. In the 1990s, 
President Clinton put us on a trajectory of job growth and smaller 
deficits despite inheriting the massive Reagan/Bush deficits. The last 
four--some would even say five, but, conservatively speaking, the last 
four Clinton budgets were either in balance or in surplus. President 
Clinton handed President George W. Bush a projected $5.6 trillion, 10-
year budget surplus, but Republicans squandered that surplus with 
massive tax cuts for the wealthy and two unpaid-for wars. Their 
spending sprees exploded a vast, new $5 trillion-plus debt that was an 
$11 trillion turnaround from the Democrats' path to surplus.
  Under President Obama, then, Democrats restored responsible spending 
rules. We had pay-as-you-go: Do you want to invest in something? You 
must cover it. You must offset it or pay for it. That held true for 
investments as well as for tax cuts. Republicans didn't mind paying for 
food stamps, but they did mind paying for tax cuts for the rich; that 
they wanted to have exempted from pay-as-you-go.
  But despite President Obama's restoring responsible spending rules 
and slashing the Bush deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars, this 
Republican Congress has raced back toward fiscal ruin, recklessly 
erasing that progress and exploding the debt with their contempt for 
fiscal responsibility.
  Republicans exploded deficits by another $2 trillion with their GOP 
tax scam and its massive handouts to corporations and the wealthiest 1 
percent. Just this week, the CBO exposed the staggering cost of the 
Republican special interest agenda, forecasting deficits of nearly $1 
trillion or more every year President Trump remains in office.
  Understand this: the Trump trillion-dollar deficit is here for the 
life of his Presidency. May that be short.
  Yet Republicans have the nerve to demand that seniors and little 
children sacrifice to pay for their tax cuts for the rich and corporate 
America, for their fiscal recklessness. GOPs have nothing but contempt 
for the health and security of America's families. The Trump budget 
slashed half a trillion dollars from Medicare, $1.4 trillion from 
Medicaid, and $72 billion from Social Security disability benefits. 
Why? So they could give a tax cut of $1.5 trillion to corporate 
America. With the interest that it incurred, it would be over a $2 
trillion deficit, paid for by cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social 
Security.
  Their legislation priorities add to a mountain of utter, utter 
derision, disregard, and disdain for hardworking families, from 
slashing SNAP, food stamps, to gutting consumer protections for seniors 
and servicemembers, our men and women in uniform, to sabotaging 
America's affordable, quality healthcare.
  And now, with this constitutional amendment, the Republicans found 
another cynical tool to gut the bedrock guarantees of Medicare, 
Medicaid, and Social Security. The so-called balanced budget amendment, 
which is going nowhere--it won't even win the vote on the floor today--
this is engineering, budgetary engineering, designed to slash Medicare, 
Medicaid, and Social Security.
  As the AARP warns, the GOP balanced budget amendment, so-called, 
would subject Social Security and Medicare to deep cuts that would be, 
in

[[Page H3179]]

their words, devastating for millions of Americans. The American people 
cannot afford Republicans' fiscal hypocrisy and their relentless 
efforts to gut Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--I can't say it 
enough--just to enrich the special interests.
  Democrats know that investments in the health and strength of the 
American people are the best ways to reduce the deficit and grow the 
economy. In fact, nothing brings more money to the treasury than 
investing in the education of the American people: early childhood, K-
12, higher education, post-grad, lifetime learning for our workers.
  Democrats will continue to cut the deficit, create good-paying jobs, 
protect American families with a better deal, better jobs, better pay, 
a better future for all Americans.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Poliquin).
  Mr. POLIQUIN. Mr. Speaker, the big career spenders here in the House 
and in the Senate who have only recently found fiscal discipline, well, 
today they have the chance to join me to vote for, vote ``yes'' for, a 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
  When I was the Maine State treasurer, Mr. Speaker, I helped make sure 
that Augusta's books were balanced without gimmicks. Now it is well 
time that Washington is forced--forced--to live within its means just 
like every other family and small business in the State of Maine.
  Mr. Speaker, 49 States in this country have constitutional amendments 
at the State level to make sure they spend only what they take in. It 
is about time Washington has the same discipline. Mr. Speaker, it is 
not fair and it is not right when career politicians spend every single 
nickel that they collect from you in taxes and then borrow as much as 
they want to spend more. The spending in this town, Mr. Speaker, is out 
of control.
  A lot of us have seen enough. That is why I ask every Republican and 
every Democrat in both the House and in the Senate to pass a 
commonsense, balanced budget amendment to our Constitution.
  I am very proud to say, Mr. Speaker, that the first piece of 
legislation that I cosponsored the day after I was sworn in 3 years ago 
was a balanced budget amendment. Every big spending bill in this town 
is loaded with pork. The process is terrible. To force an up-or-down 
vote in the 11th hour on a bill that is a couple of thousand pages long 
does not make sense. A balanced budget amendment would finally force 
Washington to prioritize our spending, like we do for those of us who 
run businesses or balance a family checkbook. Prioritize our spending, 
and that will help eliminate waste. And that only will lead to 
balancing our books and then having the ability to start paying down 
$21 trillion in debt.
  I look, Mr. Speaker, at these young adults in the gallery. It is 
immoral to saddle these great young adults with $21 trillion in debt, 
and rising, that they have got to pay. A Federal Government's budget 
which is legally required to be balanced will force the House and the 
Senate, even with the Senate's harmful 60-vote filibuster rule, to 
spend only what we take in.
  Mr. Speaker, this is our chance, today, to start running our 
government more like a business, more like a family budget. It is 
common sense to spend only what we take in.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. POLIQUIN. Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest gifts we can give to 
our kids and grandkids is taking care of this spending and this debt 
problem so they are not saddled with a mountain-load of this stuff. 
America, today, Mr. Speaker, is watching. Who has got the guts, which 
Republicans and which Democrats in the House and the Senate? Who has 
got the guts to stand up and do what is right and pass a balanced 
budget amendment to our Constitution?
  I will. I look forward to it. I ask everyone to join me.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time 
to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, and I ask unanimous consent that he may control 
that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker said: Does anybody have 
the guts to stand up? I am standing up, and I voted against the tax cut 
bill and against the mammoth budget bill that caused this deficit to go 
up by $4 trillion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we absolutely need to address the crisis of our Federal 
debt. And we do it by coming together in a bipartisan way, having the 
adult conversation, the difficult conversation, addressing both revenue 
and spending. This is not rocket science.
  A balanced budget amendment would be worthy of consideration if 
properly crafted to provide flexibility in times of war, recession, or 
national emergency. In fact, I have cosponsored such a resolution. 
However, this rigid amendment fails to anticipate these unfortunate but 
inevitable contingencies.
  Instead, this resolution is a cynical attempt to pay for all the 
enormous costs of the Republican tax bill, the one that we recently 
passed and the one that was passed under George W. Bush, enacted to the 
benefit of special interests and the wealthy--overwhelmingly in their 
favor--and to clear the way for wholesale cuts to critical programs for 
children and seniors like Medicare and Medicaid.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress has all the legislative tools that it needs to 
fix the deficit, as we saw during the Clinton years, when they had the 
adult conversation, when they did the tough work addressing revenue and 
spending in a bipartisan way. Then the Federal Government ran budget 
surpluses as far as the eye could see when President Clinton left 
office.

                              {time}  1500

  Now, we simply need to muster the will to enact responsible fiscal 
policies that address both spending and revenue, and the sooner we do 
it, the better, but it has to be bipartisan. We have to make the 
difficult choices on spending and revenue.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment and work 
with me, work with our colleagues across the aisle in a bipartisan way 
to enact comprehensive budget solutions that work longterm for all 
Americans.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to join me 
in supporting H.J. Res. 2, the balanced budget amendment.
  As a businessowner for over 40 years, I am well aware of what it 
takes to balance a budget, make a payroll, and operate within my 
means--a practice that Washington abandoned long ago, and everyone in 
this Chamber is responsible for it.
  You know, in business, I had tools like a balance sheet, like an 
income statement, like a cash flow analysis, and a business plan to 
make decisions on how to spend money and generate revenues. I have 
never seen a body that operates in a manner where we vote to spend 
money and we have none of those tools available to us.
  In fact, we can't even run ratios on this Federal Government to know 
if we should even borrow money. In fact, we don't even know if this 
government is solvent, other than we know that we can continue to 
borrow money. And we know, for every quarter of a percent--that 
happened 2 weeks ago--that we borrow, it creates another $50 billion in 
mandatory spending. That is what I do know. Let me tell you something 
else that I know.
  I have been out in the district the last 2 weeks, and I have never 
seen optimism like I have seen since I have been in office, and I have 
been in office for a very short time. This administration and this 
Congress' efforts to reduce regulation and tax reform has created 
tremendous expansion and opportunity, particularly for our small 
business community. It is growing the economy. We see the effects of 
it. It is growing jobs and giving Americans the opportunities they 
deserve.

[[Page H3180]]

  We know that for every percent this economy grows, it adds $2 
trillion to revenues over 10 years. Yes, we have a spending problem, 
but don't we want to grow revenues? There are two parts of the balance 
sheet here.
  Mr. Speaker, I have never been part of a body where you spend the 
money first and then you have to vote to increase the debt after you 
spent the money. You know, there may be a reason for that in that I 
don't know that anybody would vote to increase the debt if you did it 
before you spent the money. You don't do that in business. You know, 
who has ever heard, in business, of spending the money first, and then 
going to the bank to borrow the money? It will not happen, and it 
should not happen here.
  The legislation we are voting on today is simple. It requires 
Congress--and we need this discipline--to not spend more than it 
receives in revenue. Facing over $20 trillion in debt in this country, 
Congress must make a change to address Washington's out-of-control 
spending habits. This legislation is long past due, and I am proud to 
vote to finally hold Washington to the same standards that we hold the 
American people to.
  It is common sense to balance our budgets. I would like to thank the 
House Judiciary Committee for all their hard work in getting this 
legislation to the House floor, and I urge all my colleagues to join me 
in supporting this important legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stewart). Without objection, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) will control the time for the 
minority.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the House Democratic minority whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise today not so much to oppose this legislation, as to 
deride it as a sham, as a fraud, as a pretense of fiscal 
responsibility. If you want to balance the budget, just do it.
  I have served here for years and years and years when my Republican 
colleagues have controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. 
Just do it. Don't talk about it.
  Now, I come here as someone who has voted for balanced budget 
amendments in the past, but I have become extraordinarily cynical at 
people who vote to cut the cost of their product way below the price of 
producing it. That is a formula for bankruptcy in any business any 
place in the world.
  For Republicans to bring a balanced budget amendment to the floor 
just weeks after adding $1.8 trillion to deficits and tax breaks for 
the wealthiest is the epitome of hypocrisy. Nobody--nobody believes 
anymore that Republicans care about deficit reduction or balancing the 
budget, let alone their own members.
  Now, ladies and gentlemen on the Republican side of the aisle, let me 
call to your attention the chair's remarks of your Freedom Caucus. Hear 
me. I am going to quote Mark Meadows. The Freedom Caucus, the most 
conservative element, supposedly, of Congress, Mark Meadows says this: 
``There is no one on Capitol Hill and certainly no one on Main Street 
who takes this vote seriously.'' Mark Meadows.
  Conservative Republican Tom Massie, a Republican, a very conservative 
Republican, says this: ``Audacity, noun: Voting on a constitutional 
balanced budget amendment only 4 legislative days after ramming through 
massive deficit spending because you believe this stunt''--Massie's 
word, not mine--``this stunt will convince constituents that you care 
about balancing the budget.''
  Not my words. Two of the most conservative Republicans in this House.
  And Republican Senator Bob Corker said this: ``Republicans control 
the House, the Senate, and the White House. If we were serious''--this 
is the Republican Senator saying--``If we were serious about balancing 
the budget, we would do it.''

  We know what it takes to balance budgets, Mr. Speaker. We did it 
during the Clinton administration 4 years in a row. Now, my Republican 
colleagues may jump to their feet and say: Yes, but we were in charge 
of Congress.
  That is correct. And President Clinton would not let them cut the 
price of our product because to do so would have led to bankruptcy. So 
what did we do? We balanced the budget 4 years in a row--the only time 
that has been done in the lifetime of any listener to these words.
  But what happened? Our Republican colleagues took office, they took 
the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, and they cut the price of 
the product, but they didn't cut the cost of the product. And what do 
we have? We increase the debt by 87 percent in the Bush 8 years.
  Democrats instituted paygo rules to pay for what we buy, and they 
worked, and we balanced the budget. Republicans came into the majority 
and scrapped those rules. Now we are mired in growing deficits.
  The CBO baseline--Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan--released 
on Monday shows that accounting for Republican policies passed since 
President Trump took office just a few months ago, the deficit will 
reach, this year----
       The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has 
     expired.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, since President Trump took office, this year, 
fiscal year 2018, $980 billion in deficits; next year, $1 trillion. 
Every year thereafter, during the Trump administration, another $1 
trillion of debt. It will total some $14 trillion.
  After Republicans passed their tax law, they knew they would be on 
the hook for its enormous deficit price tag, so immediately they said 
they wanted to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and other 
safety net programs to do it.
  This amendment would essentially write those cuts into the 
Constitution. Hear me. Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, write those 
cuts into the Constitution. This is a backdoor effort to gut the 
programs that help working Americans get ahead.
  I said I rose to deride this amendment. It is a fraud, a sham, a 
pretense, but it is also bad for our country, bad for our people. I 
urge my colleagues to defeat this silly waste of time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hill).
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker and I thank the chairman 
of the Judiciary Committee for bringing this measure to the floor 
today.
  I stand in support of H.J. Res. 2, a straightforward, long overdue 
effort to have a new tool to balance the budget, something my 
constituents in Arkansas have long talked about.
  When Arkansans sent me to Washington, they demanded leadership and 
accountability and for me to be part of the solution to Washington's 
top-down one-size-fits-all approach to spending. With just over $8 
trillion, Mr. Speaker, added in debt over the past 8 years, my 
constituents continue to argue that same point they did when I was 
elected 3 years ago, that the government is too big, it tries to do too 
much, and there has been no serious effort, bipartisan or otherwise, to 
rein that spending in.
  Today's vote is something that--like my friend from Maine--is a 
measure I cosponsored upon arriving at the House. It is a significant 
step to getting our fiscal House in order and delivering the kind of 
accountability and transparency that my constituents demand of their 
Federal Government.
  Why? Why now? Why today? And I approach this, Mr. Speaker, without 
the cynicism of the other side or the condemnation of this effort, 
because when our debt was only $5 trillion in 1995, the Senate and the 
House had a balanced budget amendment before them, and it failed to 
pass by a single vote in the Senate. So it was a bipartisan effort to 
get spending under control using a balanced budget amendment, and that 
maybe led, Mr. Speaker, to the constructive comments that some have 
argued today about reining in spending on a bipartisan basis, as was 
the case in the 1990s, combined with economic growth.
  Now, with our tax cuts, we have economic growth--economic growth we 
haven't seen since 2005, according to the CBO, but the national debt is 
now, because of that $8 trillion increase, at $21 trillion, 76 percent 
of GDP.
  I am convinced this amendment is now the tool necessary, because we 
have tried budget caps, sequester, rescissions, Gramm-Rudman caps, and 
we are now left with a tactic, a strategy

[[Page H3181]]

that all of our States, all but one of our States used, which is some 
form of a balanced budget amendment, which is why I come here, Mr. 
Speaker, to support this effort.
  It starts that conversation that was as constructive as I hope in the 
1990s, that we have a national discussion about spending priorities in 
this government and how we can return our budget to long-term fiscal 
health, how we can prioritize the only 30 percent of the budget that we 
debate on this House floor, discretionary spending, and have long-term 
strategies for two-thirds of our spending, our mandatory spending.
  We want a bright future for our children and grandchildren, and I 
urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

                              {time}  1515

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  This phony balanced budget amendment is an old, sad Republican rerun. 
The only real answer to deficits is responsible budgets. America 
doesn't need this phony constitutional amendment meant to cover up 
Presidents' and congressional Republicans' failure to produce a 
balanced budget, even for 1 year when they hold all the reins of power.
  If Republicans actually cared about the national debt, they wouldn't 
have passed their tax giveaway last year that will add more than $1.8 
trillion to the deficit over the next decade.
  Whoa, $1.8 trillion more debt held by the public will approach 100 
percent of gross domestic product by 2028. That is economic roulette. 
The deficit just rises. It kind of reminds me of President Trump being 
in the casino business and bankrupting them.
  Our country hasn't seen this level of debt since just after World War 
II, when the debt-to-GDP ratio hit an all-time high. That is 1946; this 
is 2018.
  Couple that with the ballooning U.S. trade deficit, which represents 
the gap between foreign imports versus U.S. exports, now reaching over 
half a trillion dollars every year in the red, half of that coming from 
unfair trade with China.
  If this corrosive pattern of financial abandon and foreign borrowing 
continues, at some point in the near future, foreign interests will 
view America's financial subservience to them as a strategic victory.
  Sadly, the Republican pattern of tax giveaways to the rich while 
racking up huge Federal deficits is not new. Republican Donald Trump's 
mammoth deficits remind me of Republican Ronald Reagan's gaping 
deficits, which Democrat Bill Clinton had to rein in during the 1990s.
  Then-Republican President George W. Bush, post-September 11, pulled 
America into unending wars and never paid those bills. When the 
terrible financial crash of 2008 hit from that Republican abandon, 
Americans paid an enormous price for that, and our economy was finally 
pulled out with the rigor of President Obama and Democrats in this 
Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, the balanced budget amendment is a ridiculous sham. It 
is a transparent attempt and a very thin cover for Republicans to 
protect themselves during the coming midterm elections. The Republican 
Party is the party of red ink.
  I can guarantee you, the American people deserve better, and that 
change is coming.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse).
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the good gentleman from Virginia 
for yielding me some time today.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the balanced budget 
amendment, offered by my friend and colleague, Congressman Goodlatte.
  Reining in the Federal debt is not a partisan issue. In fact, the 
majority of Americans are united in consistently supporting a 
requirement to balance the Federal budget.
  Our national debt has surpassed a record $22 trillion. You have heard 
that several times today. That is more than $64,000 for every man, 
woman, and child in this country. It is more than $174,000 of debt for 
every U.S. taxpayer. If we continue to let this number grow, we will 
continue to dig a deeper hole for our children and our grandchildren.
  Since I came to Congress in 2015, I have worked to ensure the 
government does not spend above its means. I have cosponsored several 
resolutions in support of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to 
balance the budget and am proud to be an original cosponsor of this 
legislation that we consider today.
  In the 114th Congress, my colleagues and I offered an amendment to 
the Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act requiring the 
Secretary of the Treasury to appear before Congress and submit a report 
with solutions to control the national debt before raising the debt 
ceiling.
  I have also consistently voiced my strong concerns about fiscally 
irresponsible spending packages, as I did earlier this year with the 
deal to bust our budget caps and send our Nation further into debt.
  Mr. Speaker, we are on a high-speed train heading towards a very 
large fiscal cliff, and soon it may be too late to slow this train 
down. This insurmountable debt threatens our Nation's economic and 
national security, as well as future generations.
  The people of this country and of Washington State's Fourth 
Congressional District demand better and expect their representatives 
to promote fiscal responsibility.
  Over 20 years ago, when the Federal deficit was at $5 trillion, a 
balanced budget amendment failed by a single vote in the U.S. Senate. 
It is time to put a stop to the Federal Government's out-of-control 
spending and use our authority in Congress to prioritize spending. This 
balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a great step in 
the right direction.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  What a profiles in lack of courage this is today exhibited in the 
House of Representatives. But it does give us an opportunity, however 
limited the time is, to expose a lot of the myths, like this notion 
that the other side continues to perpetuate that Social Security and 
Medicare are entitlements.
  News flash: it is the insurance that the American people have paid 
for.
  News flash: 10,000 baby boomers a day become eligible for Social 
Security.
  News flash: the average women in this country, when they retire, get 
$14,000 annually from Social Security, and, for more than half of them, 
that is all they have to live on.
  Yet these bastions of courage on the other side would like to cut 
these programs not by coming to the floor of the House of 
Representatives and having a vote on it, not by having a discussion in 
a committee or even the semblance of a hearing, but somehow, as Mr. 
Neal said, with a mask on, decide that they are going to introduce an 
amendment where they will never, ever have to vote on what their 
constituents actually have to face day in and day out. These are 
American citizens who have paid through an insurance program, not an 
entitlement. It is called FICA, the Federal Insurance Contributions 
Act.

  Whose contribution? The American people's contribution.
  If you want to vote to take it away, have the courage to bring up a 
bill and vote on it.
  How about we increase the benefits for the people of this country who 
need it?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).
  Mr. BACON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 2, which 
proposes a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States, and I am proud to be a cosponsor.
  For too long, the United States Government has overdrawn its checking 
account, and we must stop or we leave our children, our grandchildren 
and great-grandchildren saddled with debt.
  In Nebraska, we balanced our budget and even have a cash reserve on 
hand of around $500 million. This is the Nebraska way, and we need to 
make it the American way. Our State law forbids the carrying over of a 
deficit from one year to the next. This has resulted in Nebraska being 
ranked sixth for best fiscal condition in the Nation.

[[Page H3182]]

  We need a forcing function that balances the Federal budget like we 
have in Nebraska. What Nebraska does, so can we with our Federal 
budget.
  While H.J. Res. 2 will require the President to submit a proposed 
budget to Congress where spending does not exceed receipts, there are 
some safeguard measures in the event spending would need to exceed 
revenue. A requirement for a three-fifths vote of both Chambers would 
be required to raise the debt ceiling, but Congress can waive that 
three-fifths requirement for any fiscal year the U.S. is engaged in 
military conflict that causes an imminent and serious military threat 
to national security and is declared by a joint resolution of both 
legislative bodies.
  If I could balance my checkbook at home, why can't the United States?
  If the State of Nebraska can balance their budget and have a cash 
reserve, why can't the United States?
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 2 to 
put our great Nation on the path to debt recovery.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been hearing a lot from my friends on the other 
side of the aisle about soul-searching. Now that they have passed a $2 
trillion-plus tax plan, my Republican colleagues say they are doing 
some soul-searching, particularly some of my friends on the Ways and 
Means Committee.
  When you are searching your soul, you may think you have done a moral 
wrong. So today, they are making an attempt at repentance. They have 
spent hours rallying against the dangers of our country's debt, casting 
a pretty dim picture, if truth be told. But what they forget to say, or 
perhaps are choosing not to remember, is their out-of-control spending 
that got us to where we are now in the first place.
  It was just, I will remind my colleagues, 112 days ago that they 
passed a $2 trillion tax scam, the tax scam that we know is bankrupting 
America and our middle class. I say ``bankrupting'' because, now, 3 
months later, their real target is coming into focus.
  If Republicans really cared about our Nation's debt and our deficits, 
they wouldn't have spent $2 trillion on a massive giveaway to 
corporations and the wealthiest 1 percent.
  No, the Republican tax scam was just the opening salvo to undo the 
critical programs Americans have worked hard to earn: Social Security 
and Medicare. That is what today's vote is actually all about. They 
want to enshrine in our Constitution their long-sought goal to gut the 
benefits working people have earned, under the guise of balancing our 
budget.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people have seen this ruse before. They 
didn't fall for it then, and they won't fall for it now.
  If this so-called balanced budget amendment passed, Social Security 
and Medicare would be restricted from paying out benefits to those who 
have earned them--not because they wouldn't have the money to do so, 
but simply because it would be unconstitutional if this were to become 
law.
  But I will tell you this: We won't stand for the misdirection. This 
isn't about soul-searching. This isn't about deficits. This is about 
cutting Social Security. This is about cutting Medicaid. This is about 
cutting Medicare. This is about balancing our books at the expense of 
seniors, children, and working Americans, when they just gave out 
lavish gifts to the wealthiest corporations in the history of mankind 
and the megarich, and it is shameful.
  These programs have worked well for decades. These programs are the 
reason that the majority of seniors today don't die in poverty, that 
sick kids can see a doctor, and that families stay healthy so parents 
can work.
  Now, don't get me wrong, we should be cautious about what the 
government is spending, but the Republican soul-searching that is 
happening across the aisle is just a little too much for me. It is not 
as if Republicans didn't know how much their tax scam would cost the 
American people. They knew. They simply didn't care.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Ferguson).
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge all of my colleagues 
to join me in supporting the balanced budget amendment. This much-
needed constitutional amendment would finally hold Washington 
accountable to the same standards that every American family faces, and 
that is a balanced budget.
  I stand here in awe today listening to my colleagues from the other 
side of the aisle stand here and lecture about fiscal responsibility. 
The gentleman from Maryland, the minority leader, stood in the well and 
said, if you want to balance a budget, just do it.
  Well, the House Budget Committee did it, and do you know what? The 
number of Democrats who voted for it could stand on this desk in a 
thimble. There weren't any.
  When it comes to the time for fiscal responsibility and having an 
honest conversation about the meaningful safety net programs that our 
Nation depends on and values, we don't need the harsh rhetoric down 
there. Every single Republican and Democrat should have an honest 
conversation about the future of those programs and where we are, and 
shame on the other side for using it as a scare tactic.
  Without a balanced budget amendment, this body has proven, since 
1974, that only four times has it had the foresight and the political 
courage to put forth a budget and pass appropriations bills, and it has 
only balanced in just a few of those.
  Enough of the rhetoric. It is time to come to the table and have the 
discussions. If you want to balance the budget, join with us. Don't 
accuse us of not doing it. Your vote shows that you didn't do it.
  Enough is enough. It is time to have an honest conversation. If those 
programs are so important, then we as a nation need to decide how we 
are going to pay for those, and we do know that they are.

                              {time}  1530

  We can no longer stand here and have the kind of rhetoric and the 
kind of misinformation that is being spewed out by the other side. It 
is time to take our fiscal responsibilities serious, pass a balanced 
budget amendment, because without it, this Nation has been able to hide 
behind debt, and we have hidden the real cost and the real pain from 
the American people, and enough is enough.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Takano).
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. After 
passing nearly a $2 trillion tax cut that gives 83 percent of the 
benefits to the wealthiest 1 percent, it is both shockingly 
hypocritical and morally indefensible to propose a balanced budget 
amendment that would force dramatic cuts to the programs that support 
America's veterans.
  In the wake of the GOP's corporate tax cuts, balancing the budget 
every year would likely require cuts to the Veterans Health 
Administration, which serves 9 million veterans every year; or cuts to 
the GI Bill, which is a key recruiting tool to ensure military 
readiness; or cuts to benefits for disabled veterans who are injured in 
combat; or cuts to pensions that veterans earn through their service; 
or cuts to our national cemeteries, which ensure veterans are laid to 
rest with the dignity they deserve.
  This legislation would undoubtedly require cuts to Medicaid, which 
serves 1.75 million veterans, and it would prevent us from expanding 
existing programs like caregiver benefits for veterans of all 
generations.
  All of this would happen while the wealthiest people in this country 
enjoy a tax cut that they did not need.
  Mr. Speaker, when it comes to our priorities, veterans belong in the 
front of the line and corporations belong at the back.
  The majority believes that we can afford a corporate tax cut that 
costs $1.3 trillion, yet we cannot afford to extend caregiver benefits 
to every veteran, which would only cost $4 billion.
  This vote is, indeed, about a country headed toward bankruptcy, but 
it is not so much financial bankruptcy as it is moral bankruptcy.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

[[Page H3183]]

  

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Biggs), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his work on this 
bill, bringing it forward, as well as his graciousness for letting me 
speak today.
  Mr. Speaker, I will say that what I am hearing from the other side 
leaves my head spinning. I hear yammering, but I constantly wonder: Did 
they bother to read this particular balanced budget amendment?
  The struggle I have with this balanced budget amendment is not what 
they say. They say this is going to go directly to spending reductions.
  The issue for me is, when I look at it, I see that we make it easier 
to raise taxes, that is what we make it easier to do, by a 51 percent 
vote. When I see it, we make it easier to spend like we did in the 
omnibus, the bipartisan omnibus bill, because that only requires a 
three-fifths vote to set aside the balanced budget restraints by this 
administration. That gives me concern, because 61 percent of the vote 
in the House would have exceeded that just a couple weeks ago with the 
omnibus bill. In the Senate, it was by more than 60 percent. So that is 
a bit problematic for me.
  I will make one last point here before I continue on to the previous 
point, and that is we are going to see 7 years, roughly, for the 
ratification process and then another 5 years after that before this 
actually is enacted. That is 12 years. That means that we are going to 
have probably around a $30 trillion national debt by then.
  Now, my friends on the other side who are using scare tactics and 
saying, ``This is going to cause this cut here and this cut in programs 
there,'' they don't know that. They are making assertions to do what 
David Horowitz calls ``inspire through fear,'' and that is what we are 
seeing here.
  I think this bill could be better, significantly better, but I also 
think that hyperbolic rhetoric does not do this body or the American 
people good when we are discussing something of this magnitude.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for 
yielding to me at this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is truly embarrassing. I don't even think 
``Saturday Night Live'' could come up with a skit of this nature.
  Here we are today debating a constitutional amendment to balance the 
budget on the heels of one of the most fiscally reckless tax cuts in 
this Nation's history, which the Congressional Budget Office just 
estimated will increase our national debt by over $2 trillion over the 
next 10 years.
  Eighty-three percent of the benefit is going to the wealthiest 1 
percent. What relief is being delivered to working families disappears 
in 5 years. This also came on the heels of a 2-year budget that exceeds 
the current spending caps by over $300 billion.
  Now, don't take my word for it. Consider what Republican Senator Bob 
Corker recently said, who was the deciding vote in the Senate on that 
tax cut:
  ``If it ends up costing what has been laid out here, it could well be 
one of the worst votes I've made.''
  ``None of us have covered ourselves in glory. This Congress and this 
administration likely will go down as one of the most fiscally 
irresponsible administrations and Congresses that we've had.'' 
Republican Senator Bob Corker.
  Now, listen, I have supported a balanced budget amendment in the 
past, but I have done it primarily as a check against reckless 
Republican spending. As history has shown, it is typically during 
Republican administrations when budget deficits explode and during 
Democratic administrations when they come down.

  But why are we making this so difficult on ourselves? We don't need a 
constitutional amendment. We need to get back to budget rules that we 
know work.
  Pay-as-you-go budgeting worked. We had it in place in the 1990s 
during the Clinton administration, and it led us to 4 years of budget 
surpluses and we were paying down the national debt. We had pay-as-you-
go budgeting in the early years of the Obama administration, when he 
inherited a $1.5 trillion budget deficit from the previous 
administration, and by the time President Obama left office, that was 
reduced by over two-thirds.
  We don't need a constitutional amendment. We need political courage. 
We need budget rules that have shown that they work in the past. That 
is what we should be discussing today.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bergman).
  Mr. BERGMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a balanced 
budget amendment to our Constitution.
  H.J. Res. 2 proposes an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting 
Congress from spending more money than it takes in every year.
  At a time when our national debt is over $20 trillion and our yearly 
deficits run in the hundreds of billions of dollars, now, now, now is 
the time for action.
  I came to Congress to make sure that we are leaving a better world 
for our kids and for our grandkids, for all our kids and all our 
grandkids, and to do so means controlling Federal spending.
  Our national debt is one of the greatest security threats, and it is 
time to show our constituents and the rest of the world that we are 
serious about getting our budget under control.
  We can't ignore this problem anymore, and the only way we are going 
to accomplish anything is if we all feel as though we have real skin in 
the game.
  Every individual and business in Michigan's First District has to 
live within their financial means. There is absolutely no reason that 
the Federal Government should be an exception to that rule. This 
constitutional amendment would require Congress do just that: live 
within our means.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, this much overdue 
legislation.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this budget 
amendment.
  You know, when the majority forced through their $2.3 trillion tax 
cut for corporations and the wealthiest Americans, they did not give a 
second thought to the deficit. Eighty-three percent, by the way, of the 
cuts went to the top 1 percent, the richest families in the country, 
the richest corporations, including President Trump.
  Now the majority wants our children, they want seniors, they want 
working families, middle class families to cover the cost. This 
amendment would likely decimate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, 
education, funds for rebuilding America's infrastructure, veterans' 
pensions, and, yes, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
  According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, by 2028, 
this amendment could trigger cuts of up to $1.7 trillion to Medicare 
and $2.6 trillion to Social Security.
  The Association for the Advancement of Retired Persons, AARP, has 
said of this amendment: ``The lack of a dependable Social Security and 
Medicare benefit would be devastating for millions of Americans.''
  This amendment would endanger our economy, it would starve the 
government of revenues, it ties Congress' hands in a national or 
economic crisis.
  The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said this amendment would, 
``make recessions longer and deeper by forcing spending cuts or tax 
increases when the economy is weak.''
  Over 270 service, health, child welfare, labor, environmental, good-
government organizations like Paralyzed Veterans of America, AFL-CIO, 
the NEA, the NAACP oppose this measure. We need to oppose it.
  With this amendment, President Trump and my colleagues in the 
majority want to leave families and workers holding the bag for their 
$2.3 trillion gift. The tax cut was a gift to corporations and the 
richest Americans.
  It is a mistaken policy and a cynical gimmick. It is a coverup for 
completely ignoring the budget busting that they were engaged and 
involved in with the tax bill.
  This amendment is bad for workers, bad for families, bad for our 
Nation, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining 
on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Donovan). The gentleman from Virginia 
has 46 minutes remaining. The

[[Page H3184]]

gentleman from Maryland has 32 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, fiscal conservatism means cutting spending where 
possible and, in turn, spending responsibly. Yes, it is a balance. In 
our homes, we have to do it; in our businesses, we have to do it. When 
the economy goes down, you don't spend as much in your business or your 
home, so you have to be balanced and responsible.
  Today's vote is timely. The CBO's recent report confirmed what many 
of us already know: Washington has a spending problem.
  The budget deficit will near $1 trillion next year, and trillions 
more are projected indefinitely.
  Only a decade ago, the Federal debt held by the public was 39 percent 
of GDP, maybe even too much at that time, but today it is 75 percent, 
and it is expected to surpass 96 percent over the next decade. Does 
anybody think that that is sustainable? At what point does the debt 
become so severe, that we stall our economic growth?
  Maybe we cannot answer that question today, but we all know that 
point looms on the horizon when we must answer that question.
  If we don't act, we or our children, or perhaps, in my case, even our 
grandchildren, are going to find out the hard way. The burden of our 
borrowing is going to fall on our future generations, hurting their 
ability to flourish.
  I wonder how many of us want to look our children or our 
grandchildren or maybe, in some cases, our great-grandchildren in the 
eye and say: We weren't responsible enough to do that; we are going to 
leave that burden to you.
  I could not, in good faith, support the recent budget cap agreement, 
nor could I support the most recent omnibus bill. In fact, I voted for 
the Cut, Cap and Balance Act during my first year in Congress, which 
would have capped the future spending based on the GDP, and I am very 
proud of that vote.

                              {time}  1545

  That same year, I supported the Budget Control Act, which reined in 
the years of high level discretionary spending.
  Some of my colleagues across the aisle are trying to use this 
resolution to attack the tax cuts, but tax cuts are not the problem. 
Our economy needed a jolt, and that is what we did.
  In fact, let's just look back a couple of years at what our economic 
growth was; didn't even make it out of 2 percent. Many quarters we were 
down at 1.5 percent. We are up at 3 percent now. Is that not something 
that is worth jolting the economy for?
  Where jobs are being created; that just didn't happen out of the 
horizon. That is because of tax cuts that we see the jobs being 
created. And by the way, people are having more money in their pocket 
as a result of that.
  We will continue to see economic growth from our tax cuts for years 
to come. As a matter of fact, I was just with a group of people not 
long ago that were talking about how a small business owner, a lady 
that had a pizza shop that started out in that organization as washing 
dishes, serving pizza. She then bought it. And you know what she has 
been able to do because of this tax cut? She has now bought a second 
business; someone who started out as a dishwasher. That is what our tax 
cuts are doing.
  Spending is the problem. Our mandatory spending has been projected to 
nearly quadruple by 2040.
  Our population is aging. Our workforce participation rate is 
stagnant. For every 1.65 employed persons in the private sector, we 
have one person who receives welfare assistance. When people need 
assistance, we want to give them assistance. But work is dignity.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACK. Work is dignity. That is what our goal should be; not 
having people depend upon the government. When you ask somebody what 
they do and they can tell you what they do, they are prideful. Because 
after you ask someone their name, what do you ask them? What do you do?
  We want everybody to be at work, not where 1.65 people employed in 
the private sector, one is receiving welfare assistance. That is not 
dignity.
  This must be addressed. My budget last year began this processing of 
addressing mandatory spending, and we need to build on that progress.
  I agree that offering a constitutional amendment should be done 
rarely and reluctantly. Our debt burden threatens the kind of country 
that we leave behind for our children and grandchildren, and we must 
end this borrow-and-spend cycle that has gone on for far, far too long.
  Ensuring future generations have the same opportunities that we have 
today means making hard choices. No more delays. No more denials.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this is a very poignant moment. Speaker 
Paul Ryan announces his retirement the same week that the Republicans 
bring to the floor the so-called balanced budget amendment, which 
signals a surrender, that Republicans admit they can't budget 
responsibly.
  After the largest transfer of wealth in our Nation's history with a 
tax bill that was so flawed they couldn't even risk having a hearing on 
it, they literally were writing the bill while we were in work session 
in a desperate scramble for votes and special-interest support.
  Ryan leaves as his legacy--a guy who, on the Budget Committee, railed 
against deficits and deficit spending, slashing social spending--he 
leaves as his legacy trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can 
see, year after year.
  They come forward with a balanced budget amendment. Wait a minute. If 
my friends wanted to balance the budget, they could do it. They control 
the White House, they control the Senate, they control the House. If 
they wanted to, there is nothing stopping them. But, instead, they came 
forward with an omnibus bill that explodes spending further and adds to 
the deficit.
  The balanced budget amendment would freeze into the Constitution a 
requirement that somebody else, 8 years from now, balance the budget. 
It is a classic bait-and-switch situation.
  What a legacy for Paul Ryan and the Republicans. They have made a 
shambles out of the Tax Code, they have made a mockery of tax fairness. 
They are not willing to make hard spending decisions today. They want 
to freeze something in the Constitution that would require somebody 7, 
8, 10 years from now to do what they are afraid, unwilling, or unable 
to do today. It is a sham, bait-and-switch in the classic sense.
  I don't think the American public is going to stand for it and, 
certainly, no responsible Member of this House should vote for it.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this imperfect balanced 
budget amendment, and let me say why.
  This week, the Congressional Budget Office released the annual Budget 
and Economic Outlook. It estimates that the trillion dollar annual 
deficits will return in only 2 years. This represents the largest 
deficit in 6 years, and is 84 percent of increased spending over last 
year.
  Today, our national debt is over $21 trillion, and approximately, for 
each individual American, $174,000-plus per taxpayer. Outrageous. And 
that is simply the debt on the budget.
  When accounting for off-budget debt, things like unfunded pension 
obligations, projected spending increases in the social safety net 
programs, baby boomers retirement from the workforce, and actual debt 
is actually much greater.
  In order to make our budget sustainable, we must decrease deficits by 
$379 billion every year for the next 75 years. Sadly, we are not even 
coming close to this. In fact, we are going in the opposite direction.
  History shows us that nations and empires usually fail when the cost 
of serving their debt exceeds the cost of

[[Page H3185]]

defending their borders. If we continue down this path, America could 
be spending more on the debt interest payments than we do on our 
national defense within 5 years.
  However, as serious as this issue is to the future of our country and 
future generations, no one can possibly take this vote seriously, and 
let me tell you why. We are voting on a balanced budget amendment 
because my Republican friends passed, on a party-line vote, a deficit 
finance tax cut that will result in $2.2 trillion in additional 
borrowing over the next 10 years. Therefore, this is nothing more than 
a fig leaf, and it is the height of hypocrisy.
  What we should be doing is voting on a balanced budget amendment that 
Stephanie Murphy has put forth that protects commitments our Nation has 
made to current generations by protecting social safety net programs 
like Medicare and Social Security from cuts. But we are not allowed 
that choice, and yet, we must get our fiscal house in order.
  I am one of 38 Members that voted for the Simpson-Bowles Act. Talk 
about lack of profiles in courage.
  Let me make an observation, after being here 14 years, and that is 
that the rhetoric that we see in this debate and that we have seen in 
past debates on our budget deficit does not comport to the hard 
realities of choices that we have to make. It is that simple.
  After 14 years in Congress, it is my view that this will only happen 
when Republicans and Democrats come together to make hard choices to 
agree on long-term revenues that are in line with our expenditures. It 
is not a difficult concept to understand. We have got to think of hard-
line revenues that are going to be in line with our expenditures. But 
we are not willing to do that.
  So this balanced budget amendment, while not perfect, I am going to 
vote for it because I think it is a step to keep the debate going and, 
ultimately, hopefully, will allow us to sit down in a bipartisan 
fashion to make the hard decisions that Americans expect us to make. 
That is why we have been sent here.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutch).
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, according to a FOX News poll from March 25, 
91 percent of voters want background checks on all gun buyers. Another 
poll from Quinnipiac last November found that 94 percent of owners in 
gun-owning households support universal background checks.
  Yet, as the American people ask for stronger gun laws, the majority 
would rather talk about mental health instead.
  That is fine, Mr. Speaker. Want to talk about mental health? The vast 
majority of people with mental illness aren't violent and are more 
likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators. And more 
than half of the Americans who need mental healthcare don't get it.
  We have a mental health access crisis in this country, and gun 
violence is only a heartbreaking sliver of that problem.
  Merely 43 percent of psychiatrists accept Medicaid, compared with 73 
percent of other physicians.
  But what does this have to do with the balanced budget amendment we 
are voting on today?
  Mr. Speaker, this amendment is an attempt to tie our hands, an 
attempt to force us to dismantle programs like Social Security, 
Medicare, and Medicaid. It would force cutting benefits, reducing 
coverage, slashing payments, or all of the above.
  The most vulnerable Americans rely on these programs for a secure 
retirement, to stay healthy, and to make ends meet when a breadwinner 
is disabled or dies. And Medicaid is the single largest payer for 
mental health services, meaning that forcing constitutionally required 
cuts on Medicaid will plunge our mental healthcare system into even 
further disarray.
  This amendment is just the latest example of mental health hypocrisy 
of the Republican caucus. It is a standard page out of the shameful GOP 
playbook whenever there is a mass shooting.
  Step 1: Talk exclusively about mental health until people stop paying 
attention.
  Step 2: Undercut and jeopardize access to mental health services, 
making the problem worse.
  I am not going to let this Congress stop paying attention. I refuse 
to let my Republican colleagues use those who need mental healthcare as 
excuses and scapegoats.
  And if Congress can't move forward with a policy supported by more 
than 90 percent of voters, something is wrong. Congress isn't 
representing the people. It is representing the bottom line of 
corporations that sell guns.

  If we want to amend our Constitution, let's amend it to get money out 
of politics. Let's stop gun corporations from flooding our elections 
with money to protect their profits. Let's overturn Citizens United. 
Let's give the voices of the American people more power than wealthy 
special interests.
  The Democracy for All Amendment, H.J. Res. 31, is supported by over 
160 Members of Congress and voters across party lines, and it would do 
just that. That is the constitutional amendment we should be 
considering today, one that will put the American people in charge of 
the agenda of this House. Instead, we are voting again to put profits 
above our health, above our safety, above our democracy.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, our good friends across the aisle have been bristling 
when my colleagues have pointed out the breathtaking budget hypocrisy 
being shown by the majority today, so I thought, instead, I would offer 
the comments of their fellow Republicans.
  Here is headline news: ``Conservatives irate over GOP's budget 
hypocrisy.'' ``Critics chafe over a balanced budget amendment vote on 
the heels of an omnibus spending spree.''
  And then we get quotes from a number of Members, including Freedom 
Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows, who says: ``There is no one on Capitol 
Hill, and certainly no one on Main Street, that will take this vote 
seriously.''
  We hear from someone named Barbara Boland, who equated the exercise 
to ``gorging on a sumptuous feast while insisting that you want a 
svelte physique.''
  Mr. Speaker, America knows they just drove a $2 trillion deficit hole 
into our budget with their gold-plated tax-and-spend scam; and the CBO 
now predicts the deficit will reach an astounding $1 trillion in 2019, 
and will continue increasing annually to $1.5 trillion by 2028.
  That is not something the Constitution made them do. That is not 
something the Declaration of Independence made them do, or the 
Gettysburg Address. That is something they cooked up all by themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, they promised to drain the swamp, but they just moved 
into the swamp and drained the Treasury instead. The Treasury is 
ransacked, but the swamp is teeming with monstrous special interests 
devouring the common wealth of the American people.
  After slashing taxes on the wealthiest corporations and individuals, 
they propose cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare and 
Medicaid and Social Security, the programs built up by the American 
people with their blood, sweat, tears, and hard-earned labor.

                              {time}  1600

  And now, today, after giving us one of the most regressive tax plans 
in history, they effectively want to make it unconstitutional to spend 
what we need on the people's Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security.
  The whole idea defies a basic principle of our Constitution, which 
was enunciated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in his famous Lochner 
dissent in 1905. He said: ``A constitution is not intended to embody a 
particular economic theory.''
  President Trump just signed a spending bill into law while 
complaining bitterly about it and saying he would never sign a bill 
like that again. Perhaps he shouldn't have signed it in the first 
place, but he has got the right solution in mind, Mr. Speaker: Show 
some courage.
  Here is the bottom line: If you show political courage and wisdom, 
you

[[Page H3186]]

don't need a balanced budget amendment; and if you show no courage and 
no wisdom, then a balanced budget amendment will not save you.
  We have the constitutional power right now to pass completely 
balanced budgets. Indeed, one of our recent Presidents, Bill Clinton, 
saw to it that we posted not just balanced budgets, but big surpluses 
in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, all of it done without a constitutional 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, if this political-camouflaged constitutional amendment 
had been in place when President Obama took office with nearly 10 
percent unemployment and GDP having fallen 3.5 percent over the 
previous year, it would have locked the Bush era recession into place 
and driven our country into a deep depression.
  If you have a Congress that can't balance the budget, you don't need 
a new constitutional amendment; you need a new Congress.
  If you have a majority that won't govern responsibly, you don't need 
to spray-paint political graffiti all over our Constitution; you need a 
new political program and new political vision.
  They burned fiscal discipline and budget planning to the ground with 
their tax bill. Let's not throw the Constitution into the bonfire, too.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the recognition. I thank my 
chairman for bringing this resolution to the floor.
  I confess I don't have the kind of speechwriter working for me that 
my friend from Maryland has. He has always had the gift of prose. I 
come completely unarmed with clever prose. I have just got some facts 
on my side.
  The truth is, Mr. Speaker, and you have been here long enough to see 
it, there has been a little bit of truth on both sides of the aisle 
today.
  There is a little bit of frustration that folks say: Hey. How come it 
is true that we are bringing up a balanced budget amendment in the days 
after we have just passed a bill that is the largest spending bill that 
I have seen since I have been in the United States Congress? I think 
that is a legitimate concern. I think it is a legitimate concern.
  Now, I come to the other side of aisle, and folks say: It is because 
we just passed that spending bill that we have to talk about balanced 
budget amendments again.
  Why?
  Because the House did its work, as all my colleagues recall. The 
House did its work underneath the budget caps, on time, before the end 
of the fiscal year, in the same fiscally responsible way that I have 
seen this body act over and over and over again in the 7 years I have 
been here.
  Then that bill went across to the United States Senate, where 
Republicans don't control 60 votes, and it became a partnership bill.
  And the frustration that I have heard on both sides of the aisle 
about the level of spending in that bill happened for one reason, and 
one reason only: because Democrats voted ``yes,'' and Republicans voted 
``yes,'' and a majority of the Congress acted.
  What this balanced budget amendment says, Mr. Speaker--and you have 
read it, and if any Members haven't, it is only 3 pages long, so it is 
easy to digest--it says: Listen. Spend as much money as you want to.
  For all the challenges that my friend from Maryland just recognized, 
and they are coming again--for folks who believe economic cycles are 
over, I have bad news. Economic cycles are still in effect. The laws of 
the economy are still in place, and we are going to have down cycles 
again.
  What this resolution says is, if you want to buy something, agree to 
pay for it. It seems fair.
  If you want to spend something in the name of helping your children, 
pay for it out of your bank account instead of mortgaging your 
children's future to pay for it. I think that seems fair.
  And the truth is, Mr. Speaker, you know how culture is. Culture is 
hard to change. For the first 200 years of our Republic, the men and 
women who ran this Chamber, Republicans, Democrats, they didn't borrow 
against the Nation's credit card except in times of war.
  As you know, it is only at the end of World War II where we saw 
levels of debt at the size that they are today.
  But something has happened culturally in my lifetime where we decided 
that the responsible thing to do was to spend but not tax.
  That is not the responsible thing to do. It is not a responsible 
liberal thing to do. It is not a responsible conservative thing to do.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, you have heard over and over again talk about the 
big tax cut that happened last year for America. I am glad that 
happened for America. I am seeing bonuses in paychecks in my 
constituency back home. I am seeing new businesses open. I am going to 
more ribbon cuttings. I see excitement and optimism on Main Street in 
ways I haven't seen it in years. I am excited about that. To my friend 
from Maryland's point, that is what he referenced in the Clinton 
administration.

  There in the 1990s, Mr. Speaker, we didn't cut a penny in spending. 
You remember. Congress spent more and more and more and more. But 
America was enjoying such a great economic boom, all of that money 
folks were making, turns out you can't pay your income taxes if you are 
not making an income. Folks were making more money. They were sending 
more money to the Federal Government. That is how the budget came to 
balance.
  Mr. Speaker, over the next 10 years, after the tax cut--after the tax 
cut--CBO has just projected tax revenues are going to increase by more 
than 60 percent.
  I will say that again. For folks who want to do more in America, tax 
revenues are going to increase by 60 percent. The only way, then, we 
will run a budget deficit is if folks want to spend even more than 60 
percent, more than we are spending today.
  And guess what, Mr. Speaker. They do. Nobody likes to be lectured in 
this institution, certainly not by folks who they don't believe have 
credibility on the issue. And we have heard the word ``hypocritical'' 
time and time again on the floor, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that is true.
  But my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle will remember our 
budget process. What I love about the Budget Committee, my friend Ms. 
Jayapal, we serve there together, and we have amazing opportunities to 
talk.
  Candidly, it is not as collegial as either one of us would like. We 
shed a whole lot more heat and a lot less light than either one of us 
would like on that committee. But when we had an opportunity to bring 
all of our ideas to the floor of the House, every single Democratic 
plan for Federal spending raised taxes by trillions and reached 
balanced budgets never in the 10-year window. That is just a fact.
  It is okay because we are talking about priorities and where we 
invest our money, and folks prioritized investments over a balanced 
budget. That is fair.
  Now, on the Republican side of the aisle, every single budget that 
came to the floor cut taxes and balanced budgets within a 10-year 
window. That reflects our priorities. We believe in balanced budgets. 
We believe in cutting taxes.
  On the other side of the aisle, folks believe in investments. They 
believe in borrowing today so we can get greater returns tomorrow. 
Those are perfectly legitimate conversations to have.
  But, Mr. Speaker, my frustration is this. What my friend, the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has brought before us today is a 
simple resolution that says: Put out your best ideas and let the best 
idea win; but do not, do not, do not mortgage your children's future 
because you lack the courage today to pay for it.
  We just increased spending on NIH by $3 billion, Mr. Speaker--$3 
billion. We are going to do amazing things together as a nation, things 
that are going to make every American family proud. Cures for diabetes, 
for Parkinson's, for Alzheimer's. We are going to move the needle for 
generations to come. We did that together. We both agreed that was an 
investment that was worth making.
  But we are $21 trillion in the hole, Mr. Speaker. There are a bundle 
of ideas that we can use together to attack that challenge. This is but 
one, and it is the one we have before us today.
  I would just ask my colleagues, recognize that there is more that 
unites us in our drive and desire to do what is

[[Page H3187]]

best for the American people than that divides us. Recognize that we 
all want what is best for America.
  If you don't believe in balanced budgets, fair enough, but let's not 
deride the Judiciary Committee, which has been working on this issue 
not for a day, not for a week, not for a month, but for years. This 
isn't the first time we have had this conversation. We missed it by one 
vote during the Clinton era. This is something that can bring America 
together and not divide America.
  I know this: If we do not come together, Mr. Speaker, come together 
with the votes required for a constitutional amendment, come together 
for the votes required to make a courageous change in the direction of 
Federal spending, it will be to all of our detriments, and sadly, not 
just our detriments, but to the detriments of our children and our 
grandchildren as well.
  I believe we have a Chamber full of men and women who want to do the 
right thing for the right reasons, Mr. Speaker. This is a great way to 
start today.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding me both the time and 
for providing the leadership to make this resolution available.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Jayapal) will control the time for the minority.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), my very good friend.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 2, which would 
force deep cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid under a so-
called balanced budget amendment. Like the Republican tax bill, this 
amendment is another scam that will hurt American families and the 
American economy.
  Of course I support balancing our budget and fiscal responsibility, 
but it is impossible to take this proposal seriously after the 
Republicans just gave away trillions of dollars in tax cuts to the most 
profitable corporations and the wealthiest Americans without paying for 
them.
  I have been listening to speaker after speaker lecture us about the 
importance of fiscal responsibility, about the future of their 
children. What a joke. This is the same party that added $2 trillion to 
the deficit, the largest contribution to the deficit by a single act of 
Congress in our history. And they have the audacity to talk about 
fiscal responsibility?
  Let's be clear, Mr. Speaker, about what is really happening here, 
what this is really about. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
are using this amendment to lay the groundwork and to cover up their 
plans to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They plan to 
balance the budget on the backs of middle class families and seniors, 
and then they will say: We have no choice. It is the balanced budget 
law that requires us to do this.

  The American people can see right through this.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people look to Congress to protect the 
interests of all Americans and not the privileged few and the well-
connected. But once again, we see our Republican friends are saying one 
thing and doing another. They are trying to lecture us about fiscal 
responsibility just a few weeks after they blow up the deficit to pass 
tax cuts for the top 1 percent.
  This is the kind of political double-talk that drives people crazy. 
It is the kind of stuff people hate about Washington.
  They don't expect their Representatives to give huge tax cuts to the 
wealthiest 1 percent and then pay for them by underfunding crucial 
programs that millions of middle class families rely on. But this is 
exactly what will happen if H.J. Res. 2 becomes law.
  Republicans are hoping to fool their constituents into thinking they 
are serious about fiscal responsibility, but all this amendment does is 
expose their shameless hypocrisy. They are hoping that we all have 
short memories and we have forgotten that just a short time ago they 
ran through the GOP tax scam, which resulted in a huge deficit spike.
  Remember, these are the same folks who told us: Oh, tax cuts for rich 
people? They pay for themselves.
  Of course we know that is not true. We said it then, we say it now, 
and we certainly know the Congressional Budget Office has proved that 
in their recent report that concludes that this tax bill will add 
nearly $2 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years and that the 
deficit will jump to $1 trillion by 2020. It is hard to take today's 
proposed legislation seriously in light of this fiscal recklessness.
  We already know that the Republican tax scam will cut trillions of 
dollars from Medicare, Medicaid, education, infrastructure investments, 
and healthcare for our veterans in order to fund a massive giveaway to 
billionaires and corporations.
  It turns out that the Republican tax scam was part one. Part two is 
to gut the social safety net and crucial programs for working families 
and the earned benefits for seniors.
  Given the Federal deficits that are projected in the coming years, 
the mandate under this amendment would result in an unthinkable 
reduction in spending on critical government programs. No program would 
be safe. It would require cuts to national security, the military, 
healthcare, environmental protection, and medical research.

                              {time}  1615

  It would require stealing money from bedrock social safety programs 
like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, foods stamps, disability 
insurance, and veterans' pensions.
  The Center for American Progress estimates that if this amendment 
were ratified this year, it would require cutting the government budget 
by nearly one-quarter in fiscal year 2023.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, it would slash Social Security by $308 
billion, Medicare by $239 billion, and Medicaid by $114 billion in 1 
year alone.
  Mr. Speaker, if Republicans are truly concerned about reducing the 
deficit, they should start with repealing their tax bill that added 
trillions of dollars to the deficit. Congress cannot under any 
circumstances pass this legislation, which is a direct threat to the 
health and safety of all Americans, and will decimate social safety net 
programs for veterans, retirees, and children.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time, and I 
certainly appreciate the chairman's long-term commitment to the issue 
of a balanced budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, providing States 
the opportunity to add a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution.
  Let me also say that amending our Constitution is something we should 
never take lightly. When drafting our foundational document, our 
Founders intended it to provide not just the outline of our Federal 
Government, but also to restrict the powers of each branch through a 
system of strong checks and balances.
  We must also understand this amendment, if ratified, is still just 
one part of addressing our current fiscal situation. We must still do 
the hard work of looking at spending. Reducing spending, reforming 
entitlements for the future, and encouraging the economic growth and 
opportunity needed to eliminate our deficits in the short term, and 
certainly pay down our debt in the long term.
  This is a very vital first step, Mr. Speaker, in getting our Nation 
on better fiscal footing, but we have a long road ahead.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this resolution.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a list of over 270 
organizations opposed to the balanced budget amendment.

      National Organization Opposing the Balanced Budget Amendment

       9to5, National Association of Working Women; AASA, The 
     School Superintendents Association; Academy of Nutrition and 
     Dietetics; ADAP Advocacy Association (aaa+);

[[Page H3188]]

     Advance CTE; Advocates for Youth; African American Health 
     Alliance; AIDS Alliance for Women, Infants, Children, Youth & 
     Families; AIDS Community Research Initiative of America; AIDS 
     United; Alaska Wilderness League; Alliance for a Just Society 
     D535; Alliance for Excellent Education; Alliance for Justice; 
     Alliance for Retired Americans; Alliance for Strong Families 
     and Communities; American Association for Dental Research; 
     American Association for Justice; American Association of 
     Colleges for Teacher Education; American Association of 
     University Women (AAUW).
       American Council on Education; American Counseling 
     Association; American Dance Therapy Association; American 
     Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO; American 
     Federation of Labor (AFL-CIO); American Federation of School 
     Administrators (AFSA); American Federation of State, County 
     and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); American Federation of 
     Teachers, AFL-CIO; American Indian Higher Education 
     Consortium; American Jewish Committee (AJC); American Music 
     Therapy Association; American Network of Community Options 
     and Resources (ANCOR); American Postal Workers Union, AFL-
     CIO; American Public Health Association; American School 
     Counselor Association; American Speech-Language-Hearing 
     Association; Americans for Democratic Action (ADA); Asian & 
     Pacific Islander American Health Forum (APIAHF); Asian 
     Americans Advancing Justice--AAJC; Asian Pacific American 
     Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO (APALA); Association for Career and 
     Technical Education.
       Association for Psychological Science; Association of 
     Assistive Technology Act Programs (ATAP); Association of 
     Educational Service Agencies; Association of Farmworker 
     Opportunity Programs; Association of Flight Attendants--CWA; 
     Association of School Business Officials International 
     (ASBO); Association of University Centers on Disabilities 
     (AUCD); Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America; Autism 
     National Committee; Autistic Self Advocacy Network; Bazelon 
     Center for Mental Health Law; Bienestar Human Services; B'nai 
     B'rith International; Bread for the World; Campaign for 
     America's Future; Campaign for Youth Justice; Catholics in 
     Alliance for the Common Good; Center for Community Change 
     Action; Center for Family Policy and Practice Center for Law 
     and Social Policy (CLASP).
       Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc.; Center for Public 
     Representation; Center for Science in the Public Interest; 
     Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; Child Care Aware of 
     America; Child Welfare League of America; Children's Action 
     Alliance; Children's Defense Fund; Children's Dental Health 
     Project; Children's Health Watch; Children's Leadership 
     Council; Citizens for Tax Justice; Clinical Social Work 
     Association; Coalition for Health Funding; Coalition on Human 
     Needs; Commission on Adult Basic Education (COABE); Committee 
     for Education Funding; Common Cause; Communications Workers 
     of America (CWA).
       Community Access National Network (CANN); Community Action 
     Partnership; Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America 
     (CADCA); Concerned Black Men National; Conservation Legacy; 
     Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED); Corporation 
     for Supportive Housing; CoSN--the Consortium for School 
     Networking; Council for Exceptional Children; Council for 
     Opportunity in Education; Council of Administrators of 
     Special Education, Inc.; Council of the Great City 
     Schools; CREDOCriminalization of Poverty Project at the 
     Institute for Policy Studies; Defenders of Wildlife; 
     Democracy 21; Demos; Department for Professional 
     Employees, AFL-CIO; Disability Rights Education and 
     Defense Fund; Disciples Justice Action Network; Easter 
     Seals.
       Ecumenical Poverty Initiative; Every Child Matters; 
     FamiliesUSA; Farmworker Justice; Feeding America; First Focus 
     Campaign for Children; Food & Water Watch; Food Research & 
     Action Center (FRAC); Foster Family-based Treatment 
     Association; Franciscan Action Network; Franciscans for 
     Justice; Friends Committee on National Legislation; Friends 
     of the Earth; Futures Without Violence; Gamaliel; Gay Men's 
     Health Crisis (GMHC); Generations United; Global Justice 
     Institute; Health Care for America Now (HCAN); Health GAP 
     (Global Access Project).
       Higher Education Consortium for Special Education; Housing 
     Works; Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy; Interfaith 
     Worker Justice; International Association of Fire Fighters; 
     International Association of Machinists and Aerospace 
     Workers; International Brotherhood of Boilermakers; 
     International Brotherhood of Teamsters; International 
     Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers (IFPTE), 
     AFL-CIO; International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace 
     and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW; 
     International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE); 
     Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Jobs With Justice; Justice 
     in Aging; LeadingAge; League of Conservation Voters; League 
     of United Latin American Citizens; League of Women Voters of 
     the United States; Learning Disabilities Association of 
     America; Main Street Alliance.
       Medical Mission Sisters, North America; Medicare Rights 
     Center; Mental Health America; Metropolitan Community 
     Churches; Mom2Mom Global; MomsRising; NAACP; NASTAD (National 
     Alliance of State & Territorial AIDS Directors); National 
     Academy of Elder Law Attorneys; National Active and Retired 
     Federal Employees Association (NARFE); National Advocacy 
     Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; National Alliance 
     for Partnerships in Equity (NAPE); National Alliance of HUD 
     Tenants; National Alliance to End Sexual Violence; National 
     Asian Pacific American Women's Forum; 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 and City Health 
     Officials; National Association of County Behavioral Health 
     and Developmental Disability Directors; National Association 
     of Elementary School Principals; National Association of 
     Federally Impacted Schools; National Association of Letter 
     Carriers; National Association of Private Special Education 
     Centers; National Association of School Psychologists; 
     National Association of Secondary School Principals; National 
     Association of Social Workers (NASW); National Association of 
     State Directors of Special Education; National Association of 
     State Head Injury Administrators; National Birth Defects 
     Prevention Network; National Black Justice Coalition; 
     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 CAPACD); National Committee to Preserve 
     Social Security and Medicare; National Community Development 
     Association; National Congress of American Indians; National 
     Council for Behavioral Health; National Council for Community 
     and Education Partnerships; National Council of Asian Pacific 
     Americans; National Council of Jewish Women; National Council 
     of La Raza (NCLR); National Council on Independent Living; 
     National Disability Institute; National Disability Rights 
     Network; National Domestic Violence Hotline; National Down 
     Syndrome Congress; National Education Association (NEA); 
     National Employment Law Project; National Fair Housing 
     Alliance; National Federation of Federal Employees; National 
     Health Care for the Homeless Council; National Hispanic 
     Medical Association.
       National Housing Law Project; National Housing Trust; 
     National Immigration Law Center; National Latina Institute 
     for Reproductive Health; National LGBTQ Task Force Action 
     Fund; National Low Income Housing Coalition; National 
     Multiple Sclerosis Society; National Network to End Domestic 
     Violence; National Organization for Women; National 
     Partnership for Women & Families; National People's Action; 
     National Priorities Project; National PTA; National 
     Recreation and Park Association; National Respite Coalition; 
     National Rural Education Advocacy Coalition; National Rural 
     Education Association; National School Boards Association; 
     National Skills Coalition; National Superintendents 
     Roundtable.
       National Treasury Employees Union; NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE; 
     National Viral Hepatitis Roundtable; National WIC 
     Association; National Women's Health Network; National 
     Women's Law Center; National Working Positive Coalition; 
     Natural Resources Defense Council; NDD United; Network for 
     Environmental & Economic Responsibility of United Church of 
     Christ; NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; 
     Not Dead Yet; OWL-The Voice of Women 40+; PAI; Paralyzed 
     Veterans of America; Partnership for America's Children; 
     People for the American Way; PICO National Network; Planned 
     Parenthood Federation of America; Prevention Institute.
       Professional Aviation Safety Specialists (PASS); 
     Progressive Congress; Project Inform; ProLiteracy; Protect 
     All Children's Environment; Public Advocacy for Kids; Public 
     Citizen; Public Health Institute; Racial and Ethnic Health 
     Disparities Coalition; RESULTS; Sargent Shriver National 
     Center on Poverty Law; School Social Work Association of 
     America; School-Based Health Alliance; Senior Executives 
     Association (SEA); Service Employees International Union 
     (SEIU); Share Our Strength; Sinsinawa Dominican Peace and 
     Justice Office; Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Congregational 
     Leadership; Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Western Province 
     Leadership; Sisters of Mercy South Central Community.
       Social Security Works; Southeast Asia Resource Action 
     Center (SEARAC); Special Needs Alliance; State Innovation 
     Exchange (SiX); Stewards of Affordable Housing for the 
     Future; Susan G. Komen; TESOL International Association; The 
     AIDS Institute; The Arc; The Leadership Conference on Civil 
     and Human Rights; The National Coalition for Literacy; The 
     National Crittenton Foundation; The Sisters of Mercy of the 
     Americas, Institute Justice Team; The United Methodist 
     Church--General Board of Church and Society; Transportation 
     Trades Department, AFL-CIO; Treatment Action Group (TAG); 
     Tremor Action Network; Trust for America's Health (TFAH); 
     UNCF; Union for Reform Judaism.
       United Auto Workers (UAW); United Cerebral Palsy; United 
     Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries; United 
     Spinal Association; United States Student Association (USSA); 
     United Steelworkers (USW); USAction; Voices for Progress; 
     Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement (WISER);

[[Page H3189]]

     Young Invincibles; YouthBuild USA; ZERO TO THREE.

  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Murphy), my good friend.
  Mrs. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, when the Federal Government 
spends far more than it receives year after year, it threatens the 
long-term stability of our economy, compromises our children's future, 
and undermines our security.
  Amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget is a serious 
step, but one that has become appropriate. That is because all other 
efforts to make Congress demonstrate a reasonable degree of fiscal 
discipline have failed. But not all proposed balanced budget 
amendments, or BBAs, are created equal.
  The BBA we are considering today--and I say this with respect for my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle--is poorly crafted, painfully 
cruel, and profoundly cynical.
  It is poorly crafted because it is excessively rigid. For example, it 
does not allow Federal lawmakers to run even small deficits to help the 
country emerge from a recession or a depression. That is bad economic 
policy that will hurt working families.
  It is cruel because it would allow a Federal court, if called on to 
enforce the BBA, to order cuts to Social Security and Medicare 
payments, harming citizens who have earned their benefits through a 
lifetime of hard work, and it is cynical because House leadership is 
bringing this bill to the floor after it enacted a tax law that doesn't 
do enough to help middle class and small businesses, and that will 
explode our Nation's deficits and debt.
  In fact, in a sobering new report, the Congressional Budget Office 
estimates that our annual deficit will exceed $1 trillion within 2 
years. CBO also estimates that the debt to GDP ratio will approach 100 
percent within a decade--a dangerous figure not witnessed since the 
immediate aftermath of World War II.
  It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this BBA is a superficial 
exercise in political messaging rather than a serious effort to address 
a real problem. This is a real shame because we must tackle this 
problem, not as Democrats or Republicans, but as patriotic Americans 
concerned about the future of the country we love.
  That is why last June I filed my own BBA, which has been endorsed by 
the Blue Dog Coalition. I believe my bill is a far better approach to 
the problem than the resolution we are considering today. My bill 
generally prohibits the Federal Government from spending more than it 
receives in a fiscal year, but it does not dictate how lawmakers should 
bring receipts and outlays into balance. We must examine the problem in 
a holistic manner and make the tough but necessary choices our 
constituents elected us to make. My bill contains provisions to protect 
Social Security and Medicare.
  Unlike the resolution before us, it would not balance the budget on 
the backs of those who built our economy. My bill recognizes that there 
are times when running a deficit is necessary or sensible; like when 
our Nation is engaged in a military conflict or mired in an economic 
slump.
  Therefore, the bill authorizes an exception to the balanced budget 
requirement when Congress declares war, when GDP does not grow for two 
consecutive quarters, or when unemployment exceeds 7 percent for 2 
straight months. In addition, a supermajority of the House and Senate 
may vote to authorize outlays to exceed receipts in other 
circumstances.
  In short, the goal is not to make annual deficits impossible, but to 
make it harder for policymakers to sacrifice the long-term stability of 
our economy for the sake of short-term gain.
  If the Federal Government is going to spend more than it receives, 
that decision should be taken in a deliberate and bipartisan fashion, 
and not merely because it is politically expedient.
  My broader goal in filing a BBA is to spur an honest conversation in 
Congress, in my central Florida district, and around the country, about 
the consequences, for both our economy and our national security, of 
piling deficit upon deficit.
  It is clear our country must change course. We still have time to 
act. The question is: Do we have the courage to act?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks).
  Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate some of 
the comments of others here and make it very clear.
  We have been warned over the years in writing by the Congressional 
Budget Office, by the Government Accountability Office, and by Gene 
Dodaro, the Comptroller General of the United States, that our current 
financial path is unsustainable. In accounting language, that means 
insolvency and bankruptcies.
  Back in 2015, by way of example, we as House Republicans had been 
able to successfully reduce America's annual deficits from the peak of 
$1.4 trillion under the Obama administration in the 2009, 2010, 2011, 
and 2012 timeframe, to approximately $438 billion in 2015. However, 
beginning in 2015, Washington took a wrong turn.
  In 2016, the deficit increased to approximately $585 billion. In 
2017, the deficit increased to approximately $666 billion. This year, 
the Congressional Budget Office just this week has warned us that we 
are looking at a roughly $804 billion deficit this year. Again, wrong 
direction. Wrong turn.
  Next year, almost $1 trillion, and every year thereafter, $1 trillion 
or more hastening the day that the United States of America suffers 
from a debilitating, a dangerous insolvency and bankruptcy. Hence, it 
is very important that we become masters of our own fate. It is very 
important that we do not become the debtor--as warned in Proverbs 
22:7--that becomes a slave to the creditor who becomes the master.
  In that vein, let's be clear about who one of our masters is, one of 
our creditors: China--$1.2 trillion. Perhaps for the long term they 
will be a geopolitical friend, but there is also a chance that they 
will be a geopolitical foe. Do we really want them to have control over 
our fate as a country?

  And let's be clear about the situation that we are in right now. 
Right now, if the Congressional Budget Office's projection of $800 
billion is accurate, if, in fact, we are going to spend roughly $1.3 
trillion in our discretionary budget that we just got through passing a 
few weeks ago--in my judgment, irresponsibly, but nonetheless that is 
in the past. It has happened. If that is going to be the case, if our 
creditors tomorrow were to simply cut us off, were to say we are not 
going to loan you any more money--which they have every right to do--
and if that $1.3 trillion was prorated, that $800 billion shortfall out 
of $1.3 trillion, you are looking at a roughly $400 billion cut to 
national defense. That would be their share of an $800 billion 
proration out of $1.3 trillion.
  That puts national security at risk. So it is important that we have 
a balanced budget constitutional amendment that forces Washington, 
D.C., to act like every family has to act, to act like every city, 
county, and State government has to act, to act like every business has 
to act, and that is to act within our financial means, act within our 
financial resources.
  That having been said, I am inclined to vote for this balanced budget 
constitutional amendment, but I have serious reservations about whether 
it is ineffective and somehow hollow. It needs to be stronger, and I 
urge the United States Senate to make it stronger if it passes this 
body and gets to the Senate.
  Here are three of the problem areas that I have identified:
  Section 2: ``The limit on the debt of the United States held by the 
public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number 
of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall 
vote.''
  Mr. Speaker, three-fifths isn't going to cut it. It needs to be two-
thirds or three-fourths or four-fifths, something substantial so that 
those of us who understand the economic risk of a national insolvency 
and bankruptcy who only constitute 10, 20, or 30 percent of this body 
are able to enforce this provision and force the United States 
Government to be financially responsible.
  That is one area, increase that three-fifths to two-thirds or three-
fourths or four-fifths.
  A second area in section 5: ``The provisions of this article may be 
waived for any fiscal year in which the United

[[Page H3190]]

States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and 
serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a 
joint resolution, adopted by a majority''--a mere majority--``of the 
whole number of each House.''
  So let's be clear. In virtually every year since December 7 of 1941, 
we have had a military conflict. A sharp lawyer is going to say that it 
involves national security, which triggers a majority vote to go into 
deficit spending.
  What is the law now? The law in the House is 50 percent plus 1, and 
you can pass a spending bill. The law in the Senate, though, is 60 
percent because of their filibuster rule. So we are moving that 60 
percent threshold down to 51 percent, thereby making it easier to pass 
a deficit-ridden bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Woodall). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Finally, this legislation has no express 
enforcement provision. What good is it to have a balanced budget 
constitutional amendment if there is no enforcement mechanism? I, as a 
United States Congressman, or any of my colleagues, 434 other 
Congressmen, United States Senators, Jane voter, Joe voter, they are 
not given the power under this constitutional amendment to enforce its 
terms.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the Senate then to change three aspects of this. 
Number one: increase that 60 percent to two-thirds, three-fourths, or 
four-fifths.
  Number two: make sure that we adjust the problem with the majority 
vote whenever there is a military conflict--which the United States 
seems to perpetually be in.
  And number three: have an enforcement provision so that we know this 
is not a hollow shell of a constitutional amendment; rather, it is one 
that has substance; rather, it is one that will help prevent a 
debilitating insolvency of a great Nation that it took our ancestors 
centuries to build.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Washington has 11 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Virginia has 26 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters: one from AFSCME and 
one from AARP.

         American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
           Employees, AFL-CIO,
                                   Washington, DC, April 10, 2018.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.6 million members 
     of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees (AFSCME), I am writing to urge you to vote no on 
     H.J. Res. 2 and to reject this and any other effort to amend 
     the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced budget.
       The proposed constitutional amendment is a draconian and 
     unwise proposal that would damage the economy, result in huge 
     job losses and weaken vital public services that all 
     Americans depend upon. It unwisely requires outlays to match 
     receipts each year regardless of economic conditions, a 
     supermajority vote of three-fifths to increase the debt 
     ceiling with limited exceptions for outlays to exceed 
     receipts only in times of war, but not during recessions or 
     disasters.
       H.J. Res. 2 is a false attempt to claim fiscal 
     responsibility on the heels of a reckless tax cut that is 
     projected to cause the deficit to skyrocket to $1.9 trillion 
     over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget 
     Office (CBO), and to exceed $2.5 trillion if its tax policies 
     are extended. The tax cut for the wealthy and big 
     corporations irresponsibly forced revenues to their lowest 
     levels since 1956, an unsustainable level far below what is 
     needed to support programs that provide basic needs for 
     struggling families, to promote economic growth and meet 
     other critical needs like investing in infrastructure and 
     education.
       H.J. Res. 2 would irresponsibly require a supermajority 
     vote to lift the debt ceiling, an already difficult vote that 
     subjects the U.S. and worldwide economies to instability and 
     potential economic destruction. Further, requiring a balanced 
     budget annually would take away the ability to respond to 
     changing economic conditions and raise serious risks of 
     tipping weak economies into recession and making recessions 
     longer and deeper. Most egregious, H.J. Res. 2 is a thinly 
     veiled attempt to force drastic changes to Social Security, 
     Medicare, Medicaid and veterans' benefits that Americans earn 
     and depend on.
       H.J. Res. 2 is a dangerous and fiscally irresponsible 
     political maneuver. AFSCME urges you to reject this 
     politically motivated and dangerous proposal.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Scott Frey,
     Director of Federal Government Affairs.
                                  ____



                                                         AARP,

                                                    April 9, 2018.
       Dear Member: AARP s writing to express our opposition to a 
     balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States. AARP is the nation's largest nonprofit, nonpartisan 
     organization dedicated to empowering Americans 50 and older 
     to choose how they live as they age. With nearly 38 million 
     members and offices in every state, the District of Columbia, 
     Puerto Rico, and the U S. Virgin Islands, AARP works to 
     strengthen communities and advocate for what matters most to 
     families with a focus on health security, financial stability 
     and personal fulfillment.
       A balanced budget amendment would likely harm Social 
     Security and Medicare, subjecting both programs to 
     potentially deep cuts without regard to the impact on the 
     health and financial security of individuals. It would also 
     likely diminish the resources available for programs 
     assisting Americans who are least able to provide for 
     themselves--services such as meals or heating for those who 
     are too poor or physically unable to take care of their basic 
     needs without some support.
       A balanced budget amendment would prohibit outlays for a 
     fiscal year from exceeding total receipts for that fiscal 
     year. It would impose a constitutional cap on all spending 
     that is equivalent to the revenues raised in any given year. 
     Because revenues fluctuate based on many factors, spending 
     would, out of necessity fluctuate as well under a balanced 
     budget amendment. Consequently, Social Security and Medicare 
     benefits would also fluctuate, potentially subjecting each to 
     sudden or deep cuts. Social Security and Medicare would 
     therefore cease to provide a predictable source of financial 
     and health security in retirement under a balanced budget 
     amendment.
       The lack of a dependable Social Security and Medicare 
     benefit would be devastating for millions of Americans. 
     Social Security is currently the principal source of income 
     for half of older American households receiving benefits, and 
     roughly one in five households depend on Social Security 
     benefits for nearly all (90 percent or more) of their income. 
     Over 50 million Americans depend on Medicare, half of whom 
     have incomes of less than $24,150. Even small fluctuations in 
     premiums and cost sharing would have a significant impact on 
     the personal finances of older and disabled Americans.
       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 ran a surplus for decades--reducing 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. However, they also 
     understand that budgets affect real people; and they 
     certainly understand the difference between programs to which 
     they have contributed and earned over the course of a 
     lifetime of work, and those they have not. AARP opposes the 
     adoption of a balanced budget amendment that puts Social 
     Security and Medicare at risk. If you have any questions, 
     please have your staff contact Joyce A. Rogers, SVP, 
     Government Affairs office
           Sincerely,

                                                Nancy LeaMond,

                                      Executive Vice President and
                            Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer.

  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, let me read a couple of paragraphs from 
this letter from AFSCME.
  ``The proposed constitutional amendment is a draconian and unwise 
proposal that would damage the economy, result in huge job losses, and 
weaken vital public services that all Americans depend on. It unwisely 
requires outlays to match receipts each year regardless of economic 
conditions, a supermajority vote of three-fifths to increase the debt 
ceiling, with limited exceptions for outlays to exceed receipts only in 
times of war, but not during recessions or disasters.''
  This is a false attempt to claim fiscal responsibility on the heels 
of a reckless tax cut projected to cause the deficit to skyrocket to 
$1.9 trillion over the next decade.
  Mr. Speaker, let me read from the AARP letter. This is, as we know, 
AARP, the largest nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to 
empowering Americans over 50 on how they choose to live as they age. 
And

[[Page H3191]]

here is what they had to say: ``A balanced budget amendment would 
likely harm Social Security and Medicare, subjecting both programs to 
potentially deep cuts without regard to the impact on the health and 
financial security of individuals. It would also likely diminish the 
resources available for programs assisting Americans who are least able 
to provide for themselves--services such as meals or heating for those 
who are too poor or physically unable to take care of their basic needs 
without some support.''

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. Speaker, the letter goes on to say:
  ``The lack of a dependable Social Security and Medicare benefit would 
be devastating for millions of Americans. Social Security is currently 
the principal source of income for half of older American households 
receiving benefits, and roughly one in five households depend on Social 
Security benefits for nearly all . . . of their income. Over 50 million 
Americans depend on Medicare, half of whom have incomes of less than 
$24,150. Even small fluctuations in premiums and cost sharing would 
have a significant impact on the personal finances of older and 
disabled Americans.''
  Mr. Speaker, I am here to say that we are in strong opposition to the 
so-called balanced budget amendment today. There is a word that has 
been thrown around in this discussion. Because I care about words, I 
wanted to make sure that I was using the right word for what is 
happening. So I looked in the dictionary, and I looked up the word 
``hypocrisy.'' Here is the definition of hypocrisy: hypocrisy is the 
practice of claiming to have standards or beliefs to which one's own 
behavior does not conform. The dictionary definition goes on to say: a 
pretense.
  That, Mr. Speaker, is what is happening, a pretense.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Arrington).
  Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Virginia, our chairman, for his leadership on, quite frankly, two of 
the most important issues that we face as a nation: number one, border 
security, which is national security; and then our national debt which 
if we ever--and we don't know when--but when it happens, it will be 
awfully hard to put it all back together, but a sovereign debt crisis 
would be devastating and would be our greatest national security 
threat. So I want to thank him for his leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, our great country is currently over $21 trillion in 
debt, and if we don't address this looming crisis, our children will 
not inherit the exceptional Nation that we as Americans have known for 
generations. This is the most important issue, I think, of our day. 
This is my generation's greatest challenge.
  One of the main reasons the American people are so frustrated and 
have lost confidence in Congress is because we play by a different set 
of rules. Nowhere is that disconnect more prominently on display than 
how we fund our government. No one gets to spend money they don't have 
on things they don't need. No one has a money tree growing in their 
backyard except, apparently, the United States Treasury.
  A day of reckoning is coming, and once the sovereign debt crisis 
begins, we won't be able to stop it, and the dark days of high taxes 
and high unemployment will descend upon the next generation of 
Americans.
  History has proven a few things, and one of them is that Congress 
will only limit its appetite for spending and responsibly manage its 
fiscal affairs when forced to do so. So the only solution that I see to 
this potentially devastating problem is to force Congress to do what it 
collectively doesn't have the will to do.
  That is why I support a balanced budget amendment that requires 
Congress to--get this--not spend more money than it receives, not to 
spend more money than it gets in revenue.
  The American people have to prioritize to live within their means, 
Mr. Speaker, and their government ought to do the same.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the word ``hypocrisy.'' I mentioned the word 
``pretense.'' If this was such an important issue, why did it not get 
proposed before the GOP tax scam? Because if the majority is really 
worried about the deficit, then they would not have passed a tax scam 
that cost this country $1.9 trillion simply to give tax cuts to the 
wealthiest individuals and corporations in our country.
  This morning in the Budget Committee where I serve as vice ranking 
member, the Congressional Budget Office Director, Keith Hall, 
reaffirmed what we always knew, that these tax cuts do not pay for 
themselves. He also told us that there is no such thing as sustained 
growth of the rates that our Republican colleagues have thrown out 
there and said are going to happen.
  So if the majority were worried about a balanced budget, they should 
have voted ``no'' on the GOP tax scam. But that is not what my 
Republican colleagues did. If they were worried about a balanced 
budget, then Republican colleagues should not have insisted on a $670 
billion military spending budget. But we didn't hear a peep about this 
then. You can't just oppose spending, Mr. Speaker, when you don't like 
the things that we are spending on.
  By the way, I have some breaking news: Republicans control the House, 
the Senate, and the Presidency. Republicans have control. But as we are 
seeing, that does not mean that Republicans know how to govern.
  This amendment is a new low to showcase a contempt of the American 
people's memory and intelligence. But I believe that the American 
people are watching. They didn't buy the tax scam where they are now 
seeing that only 5 percent of those tax cuts are actually going to 
workers, and they are not going to believe in this maneuver either, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Why? Because, as I said during the tax scam debate on the floor last 
year, the American people are going to rise up against any concerted 
and naked effort to cut earned benefit programs like Medicare and 
Social Security. I want to emphasize the words ``earned benefit'' 
because people call them entitlement programs, but Social Security is a 
program that people have contributed to with a promise that they would 
be taken care of when they retire.
  But let's talk about the real purpose of this balanced budget 
amendment. It is similar to what I said on the floor last year in the 
middle of this debate, a three-step dance. Step one, pass a GOP tax 
scam to transfer $1.3 trillion in debt from working Americans to the 
wealthiest 1 percent and largest corporations.

  Step two, explode the deficit--exactly what we heard from the CBO 
Director today--$2 trillion to the budget deficit over the next 10 
years.
  Step three, use those exploding deficits to justify deep cuts to the 
very programs that matter the most to Americans, Social Security, 
Medicare, and Medicaid.
  We have already seen this strategy in the President's fiscal year 
2019 budget which slashes $500 billion from Medicare, $1.4 trillion 
from Medicaid, and $72 billion from Social Security disability.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not just the American people and Democrats in 
Congress who have noticed the hypocrisy of what is being proposed 
today. Even some Republicans in Congress have talked about it. Our 
colleague, Congressman Mark Meadows, said--and these are his words that 
I am quoting--``There is no one on Capitol Hill, and certainly no one 
on Main Street, that will take this vote seriously.''
  He is right. This isn't going to fool anyone, least of all the 
American people.
  Americans deserve so much better. My friend from Georgia talked 
earlier about how we both sit on the Budget Committee, and we have 
actually had conversations about how we wish we could actually talk 
about real solutions. That doesn't happen as often as it should, and 
certainly if you want to have a conversation about the deficit and the 
debt, we should have that. But to propose a balanced budget amendment 
after you have already voted for a tax cut that increased the deficit 
by $2 trillion over the next 10 years, that, I think, is something that 
people will see through. Americans will see through that just as they 
saw through whom the benefits of the tax cut are actually going to.

[[Page H3192]]

  So, Mr. Speaker, today I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
this amendment, and let's get back to the real work of serving the 
American people with real discussions and real questions that come up 
at the time when they are relevant.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In closing, let me quote President Ronald Reagan. In his address to 
the Nation on the fiscal year 1983 Federal budget, he said:
  ``Only a constitutional amendment will do the job.''
  ``With the stick of a balanced budget amendment, we can stop 
government squandering, overtaxing ways, and save our economy.''
  A few years, later he said this in his weekly radio address:
  ``One part of our Founding Fathers' genius was their provision for 
amending the Constitution. They knew they had created a good document 
but not a perfect one. In fact, even two centuries ago, some of them, 
especially Thomas Jefferson, were troubled by one omission: the lack of 
a limitation on public borrowing by the Federal Government.''
  ``Well, even in their reservations about the Constitution, the 
Founding Fathers were perceptive and wise.
  ``I think most of you know how badly out of control Federal spending 
has gotten in recent years;''--I'm quoting President Reagan in 1980--
``today the national debt is $2.25 trillion.''
  ``. . . I'm one of those Americans who has always believed that a 
constitutional amendment mandating that Congress balance the budget is 
the answer to what ails us.''
  That was 30 years ago. Today the national debt is over $20 trillion, 
and President Reagan's words ring 10 times louder as a result.
  I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and 
in freeing our children and grandchildren from the burden of a 
crippling debt they had no hand in creating so they and their own 
children and generations to come can be free to chart their own 
futures.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment 
to the United States Constitution, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, here they go again. Republicans are coming to 
the House floor to decry growing deficits, as if they had nothing to do 
with them.
  Just this week, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 
reported that the federal deficit is going to double over the next five 
years--driven by policies passed by a Republican-controlled House and a 
Republican-controlled Senate and signed into law by a Republican 
President.
  Their hands are stained with red ink.
  The fact that these same Republicans are now saying we need a 
Balanced Budget Amendment to tame our debt is more than a little hard 
to swallow. In fact, I don't know how they are not choking on their 
hypocrisy.
  Republicans increased the deficit by $1.9 trillion to provide huge 
tax breaks mostly to wealthy individuals and large corporations. Just 
look at the analysis from the Tax Policy Center, which shows the top 
one percent--those with income over $730,000 a year--getting an average 
tax cut of over $50,000 in 2018, compared to only $60 for those at the 
bottom.
  And CBO tells us the deficit will grow even higher if the GOP further 
extends these tax cuts for the top.
  The purpose of today's activity is not to bring balance to the 
budget--it is to provide political cover for Republicans. But even they 
are having trouble pretending to take this bill seriously.
  Here's what Representative Mark Meadows, Chairman of the Freedom 
Caucus, has said about this measure:

       There is no one on Capitol Hill, and certainly no one on 
     Main Street, that will take this vote seriously.

  Representative Jim Jordan characterized today's proceedings by 
saying:

       . . . we're going to pound our chest like Tarzan and say 
     we're for a balanced budget, it's not going to fool anybody.

  And a staffer for the conservative Club for Growth summarized the 
whole effort as, ``Leadership is just trying to check a box here.''
  If today's legislation was only about hiding the real Republican 
record on rising debt, it would be bad enough. But this measure also 
paves the way for devastating cuts in critical programs, including 
Social Security and Medicare.
  The Republican balanced budget amendment would prevent Social 
Security from drawing down savings the program is now accruing in its 
trust fund to pay promised benefits in the future. This would force 
cuts in Social Security benefits because all federal expenditures would 
have to be covered by tax revenues collected during that same year. A 
similar problem would exist for paying future Medicare benefits out of 
that program's trust fund.
  Additionally, by requiring a balanced budget every year, regardless 
of the state of our economy, this legislation would force benefit cuts 
and tax increases at the worst possible time--potentially turning mild 
recessions into great depressions. Not only would that be devastating 
for hard-working families, it also would drive future deficits even 
higher.
  Mr. Speaker, today our Republican colleagues are hoping their 
concerned words will hide their harmful actions on increasing our 
nation's debt. But in doing so, they are only creating more potential 
harm. We should reject this deceptive and dangerous charade.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
Balanced Budget Amendment.
  This Monday, we heard that federal deficits are going to be almost $2 
trillion more over the next decade than previously projected. While 
there is more than one reason for our exploding deficit, the GOP's tax 
reform bill increased our deficit by almost 20 percent.
  Last fall, I and many of my colleagues voiced our fears that the so-
called party of fiscal conservatism was going to try to pay for their 
tax bill by gutting Medicare and Social Security.
  I agree with the amendment's authors that Congress urgently needs to 
address our debt. If Congress advanced a carefully structured balanced 
budget amendment, with waivers to allow fast action to stabilize the 
markets in the event of a financial crisis like the one we faced just a 
few short years ago, and with waivers to allow us to fulfill the 
promises that we have already made to our country's senior citizens, I 
would support it.
  But this amendment does not do that. It endangers our long-term 
prosperity in order to pay short-term lip service to fiscal 
responsibility.
  I do not support potentially pulling the rug out from under Americans 
counting on their Medicare and Social Security benefits, who have been 
relying on the promises our government made to them for their whole 
lives. I do not support action that increases the likelihood that our 
country will be plunged once again into recession, endangering markets 
and economies worldwide. And I do not agree that the cost of larger tax 
breaks for multinational companies or of other fiscal decisions made by 
Congress should be borne by our country's elderly and sick.
  I ask my colleagues to vote to protect our constituents from an 
economic crisis that could be far worse than the one we suffered in 
2008, and to join me in voting against this amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Brooks of Alabama). The question is on 
the motion offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) that 
the House suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution, H.J. Res. 2.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. 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, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________