[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 18, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H2560-H2568]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
REQUIRING A BALANCED BUDGET FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 139) proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States requiring a balanced budget for the
Federal Government.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 139
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in
[[Page H2561]]
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:
``Article --
``Section 1. Total expenditures for a year shall not exceed
the average annual receipts collected in the three prior
years, adjusted in proportion to the changes in the
population of citizens of the United States and inflation.
Total expenditures shall include all expenditures of the
United States except those for payment of debt, and receipts
shall include all receipts of the United States except those
derived from borrowing.
``Section 2. Congress may by a roll call vote of two-thirds
of each House provide by law for specific expenditures in
excess of the limit in section 1.
``Section 3. Congress may by a roll call vote provide by
law for specific expenditures in excess of the limit in
section 1 for any year in which a declaration of war is in
effect.
``Section 4. Any bill to levy a new tax or to increase the
rate of any tax shall not become law unless approved by two-
thirds of the whole number of each House of Congress by a
roll call vote.
``Section 5. Congress shall enforce and implement this
article by appropriate legislation.
``Section 6. This article shall take effect with the fifth
year beginning after ratification.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Biggs) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each
will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
General Leave
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.J. Res. 139.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, today our national debt exceeds $38 trillion and grows
second by second. On a per-person basis, the national debt amounts to
$113,000 for every person living in the United States.
For generations, Congress has chosen to max out our national credit
card and leave the bill to the next generation instead of having hard
conversations about spending.
Families across our Nation have had these hard conversations, and
they balance their budgets. The leaders of this Nation should do the
same.
Americans know that debt comes with strings attached. Every dollar we
spend beyond our means today is a dollar and change we must repay
tomorrow. It is no different for government. The more America borrows,
the more expensive every next borrowed dollar becomes.
Indeed, annual Federal spending on interest is now one of the largest
line items we have. We spend more on interest than we do on Medicare.
We spend more on interest than we do on national defense.
Republicans and Democrats may have different policy ideas and
priorities, but surely we can all agree that a budget hamstrung by huge
interest payments benefits nobody.
Our fiscal trajectory is alarming and unsustainable. Higher-than-
expected interest rates or other challenges could trigger a debt
spiral. It has happened to other countries throughout history.
Without changes, it will happen to us. The day of reckoning will
come, and it will not be big and beautiful. It will be big and ugly.
There are two choices: spend a lot less on the future or spend a
little less starting today. I choose the second option. That is why I
support the balanced budget amendment. It is the only way to cement our
commitment to long-term fiscal stability.
A 5-year path to balance will allow us to make prudent spending
choices to gradually balance the budget and wean us from our reliance
on deficit spending.
It is simple. The balanced budget amendment will restore fiscal
sanity and take us off the path to an economic calamity.
But the balanced budget amendment will not merely beat back a future
fiscal crisis. It will also reduce the cost of living here and now. The
enormous Federal debt is currently driving up borrowing costs for all
Americans. Mortgages, car payments, and student loans are all more
expensive because of Congress' profligacy and irresponsibility.
We saw the disastrous effects of budget-busting deficit spending
during the catastrophic 4 years of Biden-Harris rule. With the eager
support of Democrats in Congress, the Biden-Harris administration
approved $4.7 trillion in new deficit spending, ultimately racking up
$8.5 trillion in new debt.
What did the average American get? The worst inflation in 40 years.
When Biden-Harris took over in January of 2021, inflation was just at
1.4 percent per annum. By the middle of the term, it exceeded 9 percent
per annum.
Inflation is a tax on everyone, but we all know who it hurts the
most: the poor, the working class, seniors on fixed incomes, and
American families, who saw their expenses explode and their salaries
stay flat.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise to oppose H.J. Res. 139, a feeble attempt by the President's
budget-busting, blank-check enablers in Congress to distract America
from their own staggering and historic fiscal irresponsibility.
Everyone knows they control the House. They control the Senate. They
control the White House, and they have used their total power over our
Federal Government to drive our country into a deep ditch of deficits,
debt, illegal tariffs, undeclared wars, and economic destruction.
After adding $4 trillion to our national debt with their tax breaks
for the super rich, every Republican in the Chamber but Representatives
Massie and Davidson voted to allow President Trump to keep spending
between 1 and $2 billion every day, not of his own money but of our
money, on his unauthorized and unconstitutional war in Iran, without so
much as a single vote or a single honest debate on the floor of the
House.
This war of choice and aggression, which is spiraling out of control
now in the Middle East, and which President Trump now calls this
``little excursion,'' has already cost 13 American servicemembers their
lives and wounded over 200 Americans in uniform, while killing more
than a thousand Iranian civilians, including 170 children at a girls'
school that was bombed in the first week of Donald Trump's war.
But still our colleagues sit there passive, invertebrate, and
complicit in the face of this brazen usurpation of congressional war
powers, rising from their constitutional stupor only to vote ``no'' on
our War Powers Resolution, which every self-respecting Member of the
Article I branch should have voted for.
The administration reports that the first 6 days of this war cost the
taxpayers $11.3 billion, or $1.9 billion a day.
Have Republicans come to the floor to explain why this war was
necessary or to offer evidence of an imminent threat posed to the
American people?
Have they asked for a special Iran war tax to demonstrate their
fiscal responsibility?
No. They just put Trump's little excursion, as he calls it, on the
national credit card like an impulse trip to Disney World.
But our constituents are paying through the nose for this historic
folly right now, not just as taxpayers but as consumers. We have
already been buffeted by Donald Trump's illegal tariffs and imbecilic
trade wars against the rest of the world and the soaring cost of living
under his corrupt economic policies. Now, we also have to contend with
skyrocketing gasoline prices thanks to their foolish disruption of the
global oil supply. Gas prices have shot up more than 25 percent since
the lawless mullah theocrats of Iran shut down the Strait of Hormuz
after the lawless MAGA theocrats of America bombed Iran.
Now, our Republican colleagues present a doomed proposal to deface
our Constitution with the same kind of witless, self-incriminating
graffiti someone recently scrawled on the exterior front wall of the
Kennedy Center, which they call the Trump-Kennedy Center.
[[Page H2562]]
This proposed constitutional amendment pretends to address a problem
that the Republicans created and that Republicans have refused to
address legislatively, even though they have all the political control
and all the legislative tools they need at their disposal to address
it.
We don't need a balanced budget constitutional amendment. We just
need a balanced budget. If you believe in a balanced budget, bring us
one. Show it to us. You control the Congress. But don't start a fiscal
wildfire with your out-of-control spending and then throw the
Constitution into the flames, too.
If this proposed amendment were in effect today, the GOP-controlled
Congress would be forced to pay for Trump's war by further cutting
critical programs for America's working families.
If we gain the majority and try to repeal the trillion-dollar tax cut
that they handed to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, we would
have to get a two-thirds vote in the House and a two-thirds vote in the
Senate in order to engage in an act of fiscal responsibility. But if
they wanted to pass another trillion-dollar tax cut for Elon Musk and
the richest Americans, they would only need to get a majority vote in
the House and the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, even Republicans are denouncing the gigantic, runaway
deficits that result from out-of-control Republican spending and
stupendously reckless Republican tax cuts for billionaires and giant
corporations.
One of our GOP colleagues, Representative Chip Roy, described their
One Big Beautiful Bill Act as garbage prior to the House vote, saying:
``If we're going to do the tax policy, at least do the spending policy.
Have the courage and the fortitude to do what you campaign on when
you're talking about balancing the dang budget.''
{time} 1230
Representative Roy's outrage makes sense. Republicans control the
House. They control the Senate, and they control the White House. Yet
they have not once balanced the Federal budget or even tried to present
a balanced budget to Congress.
Their obscene, ugly, profligate law added a jaw-dropping $4 trillion
to the national debt because of their massive giveaways to billionaires
and corporations, which is the true political mission on their side of
the aisle.
They paid for a fraction of their profligacy by stripping health
insurance and food assistance from tens of millions of working-class
Americans who are now living with these Marie Antoinette policies
concocted by billionaires and cyber barons throwing Great Gatsby
parties at Mar-a-Lago and bulldozing the White House to build
themselves one more gilded ballroom.
Now, rather than showing some discipline and hard work and reversing
some of their terrible fiscal blunders from the past to propose an
actual balanced budget, no, they waste their time to keep the party
going by inviting us to spend the day finger painting on the
Constitution of the United States.
To observe the semiquincentennial of the country, they want us to use
our Constitution to make them do what they claim they want to do but
refuse to do at a time when they possess all the power they need to do
it.
With the same foresight and expert planning, the White House has used
in their chaotic, forever war in Iran, they will put our government
into a fiscal straitjacket forever to cover up for their gilded
incompetence and misplaced priorities.
It would mean, for example, that a responsible leader, like Franklin
D. Roosevelt or Bill Clinton, would no longer have the flexibility to
deal with economic crises created by Republicans like Herbert Hoover or
Calvin Coolidge or George W. Bush.
The simple truth is that we don't need a constitutional amendment to
balance the budget or have responsible fiscal policies.
They have got one-party control of every branch of government. They
have never stopped talking about balanced budgets.
Why don't they just bring us one? That is all we need to do.
However, billionaire rip-off artists like Elon Musk or Peter Thiel
don't get rich off balanced budgets. They get rich when the GOP opens
the spigots of taxpayer money in Federal Government contracts and
giveaways for billionaires and the high-flying, rent-seeking corporate
class.
Republicans have run up historic corrupt deficits in this Congress
and have never once submitted a single balanced budget. We don't need a
constitutional amendment to force the majority to do the right thing.
We need a new majority. Republicans may as well introduce a
constitutional amendment saying that Federal agents shouldn't shoot
American citizens in the face for exercising their First or Second
Amendment rights, or a constitutional amendment saying Federal agents
shouldn't shoot someone 10 times for lawfully carrying a firearm in
Minneapolis.
Mr. Speaker, you don't need a constitutional amendment to respect the
law, and you don't need a constitutional amendment to do the right
thing for the American people. You just need a new majority, and, Mr.
Speaker, it is coming.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this foolish diversionary
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, histrionics and misdirection won't cover the historical
hypocrisy of the reckless spending of Democrats who now even choose to
keep parts of the government shut down.
Under the Biden administration, the national debt grew by an
unprecedented--unprecedented--$8.5 trillion.
By the way, this used to be a bipartisan issue. When the gentleman
mentioned Bill Clinton, I think: Yeah, that is the last time everybody
came together from both parties that actually produced a balanced
budget.
The gentleman asks: Well, why don't Republicans do it now?
It is because we would like to invite the other side to do it with
us. We would like to invite the other side to do it with us, but they
don't want to do it with us.
In fact, the gentleman just basically announced that he would like to
repeal the tax act and give us the largest tax increase in national
history.
What did we get from the runaway spending of Joe Biden?
When Biden-Harris took over in January, inflation was at 1.4 percent.
By the middle of the term it was over 9 percent. The One Big Beautiful
Bill Act will reduce debt to GDP, flip primary deficits into surpluses
by 2034, and reduce the deficit by about $4.5 trillion relative to the
policy baseline prior to enactment, all of this while averting the
largest tax hike in American history that my colleague across the aisle
basically just announced they are going to enact upon the American
people if they become the majority.
Democrats have proposed radical bills that far exceed the alleged
cost of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Let us see what they have done.
The Green New Deal will cost $93 trillion over 10 years. That is
theirs. Their Medicare for All proposal will cost $32 trillion over 10
years.
Mr. Speaker, forgive me if I think they are projecting a bit on this
one here. The simple truth is a balanced budget amendment would hold
both parties accountable.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Harris).
Mr. HARRIS of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, all Americans understand something very clear. We don't
have a revenue problem with the Federal Government. We have a spending
problem.
Congress has the power of the purse, but we have failed to exercise
such authority responsibly. Our national debt currently stands as of
this morning I understand at $39 trillion, which equals over $113,000
per citizen. This number grows as I speak and will not stop without
radical action from Congress.
We have borrowed our children's futures to pay for programs we cannot
afford, putting this country on the path to financial ruin. The only
way forward is to set guardrails to ensure Congress can no longer spend
money it does not have.
This balanced budget amendment to our Constitution simply prohibits
total spending from exceeding the average
[[Page H2563]]
tax revenue collected in the 3 years prior.
While critics may argue that reducing spending will somehow harm the
economy, this amendment allows Congress 5 years to adapt to the new
requirements. The amendment also sets a two-third majority voting
requirement for any new taxes to prevent politicians from taking more
of your money to spend rather than doing the hard work of fine-tuning
our budget. Despite what some opponents might say, there is no way to
tax our way out of this situation.
As I said at the beginning, all of America knows: There is a spending
problem, not a revenue problem.
Mr. Speaker, I urge full support of this amendment. It is past time
to balance our budget.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the gentleman from Arizona has conceded
that the last time we had a balanced budget was under President Bill
Clinton, the elected Democratic President for two terms who turned over
a surplus of hundreds of billions of dollars to his successor in
office. Compare that to President Trump who has been President for a
total of around 5\1/2\ years and has added one-quarter of the national
debt from George Washington all the way to today. One-quarter of that
has come from Donald Trump himself. Mr. Speaker, look not at what they
say but at what they do. That is because it is the Democrats who have
always been the party of fiscal responsibility. Like they are doing in
their Iran war right now, they are spending us into oblivion without
even coming to Congress to get the war declared. It is unauthorized--
much less telling us how they are going to pay for it other than
putting it on a credit card for our children and our children's
children to pay for many generations into the future.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this dangerous, dishonest, and
undemocratic resolution.
It is dangerous because it would require shredding the social safety
net and gutting vital investments in healthcare, infrastructure, and
public safety.
It is dishonest because the same Republicans who hold all the levers
of power can pass a balanced budget any time they want, but instead
they pass tax cuts for billionaires, creating trillions of dollars in
deficits.
It is fundamentally undemocratic because it bakes in policy choices
that should be the decision of future Congresses. Each Congress,
elected by the people, should decide the contours of its own budget,
but this resolution requires a two-thirds majority to raise taxes but
only a simple majority to cut taxes. That puts a thumb on the scale for
massive spending cuts rather than ensuring that billionaires pay their
fair share.
If my Republican colleagues believe so strongly in a balanced budget,
then they should pass one. However, this resolution, which will never
become law, is nothing more than a press release that lets them pretend
to care about deficits without doing the hard work of actually
legislating. Vote ``no.''
{time} 1240
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I find that the argument that is presented by the
gentleman from Maryland seems delusional at best--delusional at best.
This amendment doesn't target programs. It targets overspending.
Congress must live within the revenue Americans already provide, and
that is about $5.5 trillion a year. The two-thirds threshold applies to
tax hikes, not program cuts. Receipts have been stable for decades.
Spending is what is out of control. Spending is what is out of control,
and they fail to acknowledge it.
What is delusional is for the Democrats to have the audacity to say
that they are the party of fiscal responsibility when they are trying
to impose the Green New Deal, $93 trillion over 10 years.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Clyde), my friend.
Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my friend,
Representative Andy Biggs, proposing a balanced budget amendment to
the United States Constitution.
I was a proud cosponsor of this Republic-saving resolution, and I am
proud to support it on the floor today.
I also thank Speaker Johnson for bringing this resolution to the
floor and fulfilling a promise that was made when we passed the One Big
Beautiful Bill Act.
As our national debt rapidly approaches $39 trillion, Washington is
long overdue for a heavy dose of fiscal responsibility. It is not just
irresponsible anymore. It is a national disgrace, and it is time to put
an end to it.
To put our debt into perspective, this year, the Federal Government
expects to bring in just over $5.1 trillion in revenue but plans to
spend almost $7.1 trillion. That is almost a $2 trillion deficit.
Nearly $1 trillion of that spending goes to purely pay interest
payments--no principal, purely interest payments--providing no new
services, no investment, no return.
If this were a private business, no bank would keep lending it money,
yet this is how our Federal Government operates today.
This trajectory is unsustainable. Global markets will not finance
U.S. deficits indefinitely. When confidence in our ability to repay
fades, we risk a true sovereign debt crisis--collapsed pensions,
failing banks, and shuttered Federal programs.
Despite Democratic claims to the contrary, our debt crisis stems from
unchecked spending, not a lack of revenue. Without serious reform, we
face two damaging options: either, one, print more money, which fueled
the Biden-Harris inflation surge; or, two, borrow more, which raises
interest rates and slows growth.
Notably, my home State of Georgia must, by law, operate with a
balanced budget, so why not our Federal Government? I have told my
constituents that I aim to bring north Georgia values to Washington,
and fiscal sanity is at the top of that list.
As a fiscal hawk and a member of both the Budget and Appropriations
Committees, I look forward to voting ``yes,'' and I implore all of my
colleagues to do the same. Let's pass this balanced budget amendment to
the U.S. Constitution.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Yes, it is unchecked Federal spending by President Trump, who is
spending up to $2 billion a day on an undeclared, unauthorized, and
unconstitutional war in Iran.
Our colleagues won't utter a peep about it, and they won't bring us a
balanced budget, but they will bring us a balanced budget
constitutional amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, from the same folks who brought us $4.7
trillion in additional Federal debt and who worship the ``king of
debt,'' Donald Trump, as he describes himself, they present this
unbalanced budget amendment.
Apparently, this proposal, which reeks of hypocrisy, is designed by
those who gave us so much more debt to protect us from them doing even
more harm. However, I think it really should be known as the protect
our billionaire buddies act because that is what it is really designed
to do: to prevent a future Congress from ever demanding a fair
contribution from the billionaires and the multinational corporations
that pay a tax rate lower than that for a teacher or a nurse, and to
shift our jobs overseas.
Our loophole-filled tax code has more holes than swiss cheese. By
imposing this first-in-history supermajority requirement before any tax
can be increased, they prevent plugging those holes and doing anything
about the injustice and inequities in our tax code that shift the
burden onto working people and small businesses.
These Republicans aren't really deficit hawks. They are war hawks
these days, and they created a special loophole in their own amendment
for war, to ease the funding of the war machine. With Trump in office,
we can expect more wars wherever his latest whim and ego take him,
endangering all of us.
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing balanced about this amendment. Let's
reject it.
[[Page H2564]]
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, during the gentleman from Texas'
recent comments, so recently given, the national debt rose by $125,000.
Just keep that in mind.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Arrington), my friend and chairman of the Budget Committee.
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and classmate from
Arizona for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, let's pause for a brief moment of intellectual honesty.
Both parties have failed. This institution has failed. We have failed
our country.
We have jeopardized our economy, our security, and our leadership in
the world. Worst of all, we have compromised on our children's future
and the blessing of their inheritance of freedom and opportunity.
We have failed. That is why we are talking about a constitutional
amendment to impose fiscal responsibility on a body politic that has
not done that, that has not mustered the political will to do that.
We have a national debt per GDP that exceeds World War II levels of
debt, an annual deficit that is larger than both the defense and
nondefense discretionary budgets, with 50 cents or greater on every
dollar that we borrow up to $2 trillion going to service our interest
payments.
Half of what we borrow, a trillion dollars, is more than what we
spend on defense. Then, there is this ominous forecast by CBO that even
at $39 trillion today, where we are teetering on a potential sovereign
debt crisis, we will add $180 trillion to the national debt in the 30-
year out. If that is not unacceptable to everybody, I don't know what
is.
If we can't concede to the fact that this body politic does not have
the political will to address it, to rein in the spending that is
driving this unsustainable debt trajectory that will bankrupt our
country and our children's future, then we must support this forcing
mechanism. Force us to do what the American people have to do. Force us
to do what State and local governments do.
Here is another stunning, and startling for some, but for all a
sobering fact: We won't even get a simple majority vote today.
What shall we do? We should look to Article V of the Constitution,
where the sovereign States and we the people can petition their
government for another path to amend the Constitution. Guess what. They
have done that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Amodei of Nevada). The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds
to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, they had the requisite applications to
have an Article V convention of the States, to rein in us, the
knuckleheads that refuse to accept that it is not a Democratic problem
or a Republican problem. It is an institutional problem that persists
and will destroy the greatest Nation in human history.
Let's look to the States, and let's call that convention like we
should have done in the 1970s and 1980s. Let's let them rein us in,
restore fiscal sanity in their Nation's Capital, and reverse the curse
that looms large over this country.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that refreshing intervention
in the debate, but I think, as the President Clinton example
demonstrates, we can have and we have had the political will at
different points to balance the budget.
It is not politically impossible, but it does start with some people
taking some courageous votes.
For example, let's vote on whether or not we should be at war in
Iran, costing the American people $1 billion to $2 billion a day. If
you can't even have the courage to decide that we will exercise our
warmaking powers and our power to declare war under Article I, Section
8, and our spending power to do it, then nothing will save you, I am
sorry.
You can pass a constitutional amendment saying don't shoot people in
the face, but still, you have to tell ICE not to shoot people in the
face. You have to demonstrate your commitment to actually making that
policy real.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott), a very distinguished legislator.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let's talk about that Clinton
budget.
Clinton's budget passed when the deficit was $290 billion. The
Republicans fought it tooth and nail, and didn't deliver a single vote
on that budget. When it finally got down to about $10 billion, the
Republicans jumped on the bandwagon just before it was going to
balance, whether they agreed to it or not. They were prancing around
like peacocks, like it was their idea all the while.
{time} 1250
They could get credit for ten of the $290 billion of Clinton's
deficit reduction. For years, Republicans have been talking about
reducing the deficit and doing nothing about it.
If you look at what they did last year, they added trillions of
dollars to the debt in that big, ugly bill. In fact, every Republican
administration since Nixon has made the deficit worse and delivered a
worse deficit to their Democratic successors and every Democrat since
Kennedy has produced a better deficit.
The reason we have a deficit today is because the Democrats haven't
been able to clean up the mess as quick as the Republicans can make it.
Now they come up with a so-called balanced budget amendment. It doesn't
produce a balanced budget. In fact, it will make it more difficult to
produce a balanced budget. It requires a two-thirds vote to pass the
budget.
Let's get serious. You are not going to balance the budget cold
turkey in 1 year without tax increases. We are talking about a two-
thirds vote. Which is more likely: Balancing the budget cold turkey or
having a two-thirds vote without any limit to how bad the deficit gets?
I think people have been around here long enough to know that it is
going to be the two-thirds vote, and it is going to be a horrendous
deficit. Republicans have used their time to enact massive tax cuts for
big corporations and the top 1 percent. They have exploded the deficit
in the process. To balance the budget, Congress has to make the tough
decisions to actually balance the budget. It is not going to balance
itself.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment will actually make it more difficult to
do, and that is why we need to defeat this amendment.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will set the record straight on that history. It was
very colorful but a little bit inaccurate. If you remember, it was the
'96 budget that was balanced. It was balanced with all the Republicans
and a plurality of Democrats. It would have been nice if it would have
been unanimous, wouldn't it? It would have been nice, but we couldn't
get there.
Perhaps all the rhetoric you have heard today is political
partisanship. It is posturing from that side of the aisle over there
and maybe some from us because it is a bipartisan problem.
I think the previous speaker just said what are the odds of us ever
just doing it on our own. That is right. Hell froze over once about 30
years ago. Are we going to wait 30 years again until the structural
deficit exceeds $5 trillion a year when we actually have a national
debt that is somewhere north of $100 trillion?
We are not going to last that long. We need to do this now.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Onder), my friend.
Mr. ONDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment to the
U.S. Constitution to require the Federal Government to maintain a
balanced budget.
Republicans have warned for years about the dangers of unchecked
Federal spending, but because of the Biden administration's
unprecedented spending spree and Democrats' ongoing unwillingness to
return spending to pre-COVID levels, we are now at a defining
crossroad.
Within a few years, the debt held by the public will surpass every
previous record in our Nation's history, even levels reached during
World War II.
Two years ago for the first time in our Nation's history, we began
spending more on net interest on our debt
[[Page H2565]]
than our entire defense budget. Interest has become the fastest-growing
category of Federal spending and is now the second largest expense.
When we spend more on servicing past debt than we spend on veterans,
education, and transportation combined, it is clear our national
priorities are dangerously off course.
A constitutional amendment is necessary because previous attempts to
curb spending are not working. Congress' budget resolution process is
routinely ignored. Pay-as-you-go laws are routinely waived. The debt
ceiling has been referred to as a ``bad joke,'' and the results are now
catching up to us.
Amending the Constitution is, indeed, a drastic measure and should
only be employed in the most extreme circumstances, but at almost $40
trillion in national debt, that is exactly where we are today. It is
time to end the irresponsible spending spree.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this balanced budget
amendment.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished former majority leader of the
House.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the American people obviously have to be so confused
about this debate because one side claims they are bringing us an
amendment, the balanced budget amendment, and their history has been--
and I have been here for some time, but Ronald Reagan increased the
budget by 189 percent.
Why do I say Ronald Reagan did it? Because he could have vetoed any
spending bill, and we would not have overridden that veto.
In 2001, we cut taxes and were told by our Republican colleagues it
would raise additional moneys. It did not.
Then some, particularly those who are claiming we made a deal and we
are keeping it to get this constitutional amendment on the floor--what
was the deal for? The deal was to vote for the big, bad bill, which
created $4.7 trillion of additional deficit.
That is a tough way to want to balance the budget. We have a paying-
for problem. That is the discipline, a paying-for problem, not a
spending or revenue problem. What we have is a paying problem.
If we would pay for things, which presumably this constitutional
amendment would seek, then we would not have this continuing deficit,
but you and I both know we are not going to do that, and you haven't
done it. We haven't done it.
Jodey Arrington is right to that extent. This is a problem where we
do not recognize the real problems of why we are so deeply in debt, and
we pretend cutting nickels and dimes will make a difference.
Now, they are big nickels and dimes. I get that, but the fact of the
matter is, it is dishonest in my view for me or anybody else to come to
the floor and say: I want to balance the budget and then vote for the
largest creation of debt ever on this floor.
Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of this amendment and defeat of the
suspension bill.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I think in one
sense he is right on the money. Both parties can share in the blame of
this massive, structural national debt we have, but I will point out
that in 2001 when taxes were cut, something happened in 2001 which
changed the trajectory of the entire Nation, and we are still dealing
with the fallout.
You will remember it. We called that 9/11, right? Some things
happened in 2001, which changed our spending. That is important to
recall.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Perry), my friend.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, welcome to bankruptcy theater.
Mr. Speaker, I am fascinated by my good friend on the other side of
the aisle telling me that they are the party of fiscal responsibility.
Let me just say, as others have said, including the former majority
leader, that this is an institutional problem because it is, indeed,
that.
Let me just make clear to the American people when they say there is
not a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats on
spending, to a certain extent they are right. However, the Republicans
are using a handcart on this railroad and the Democrats are on some
kind of bullet train on this train to hell.
As much as we have spent, and there are many in this room who have
fought against this spending, I can't imagine how much worse it would
be if we had to go to the Democrats for a vote. That is the problem.
{time} 1300
Mr. Speaker, some say that, well, it is never going to become law.
Why will it never become law, Mr. Chairman? There are seven Democrats
in the Senate that refuse to vote to balance the budget ever. It is
going to pass here maybe, but it definitely won't pass there. That is
why it will never become law.
All the people I know that I represent have to balance their budget.
I will say I went to the President. I said: Mr. President, we are
spending too much money. You ran on cutting spending. I ran on cutting
spending. We are spending too much money.
He said to me: You are right, Scott; but I can't get them to vote for
less.
He is right about that. My Democrat colleagues tax and spend and tax
and spend, and our folks are willing to spend without taxing enough. I
am not saying that we should tax more. The American people are taxed
enough, plenty. We are overspending and continuing to overspend. When I
got here, I think the individual debt per person was like about
$40,000. What is it now, $130,000?
Mr. Speaker, this place cannot control itself. The American people
are going to have to step in. This allows them the opportunity. We
ought to give it to them.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment. I
thank leadership for honoring their promise.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am charmed by the story that the gentleman from
Pennsylvania just told us about having gone to the White House to talk
to the President and telling the President he is spending too much. I
am just recording the story as it was presented to us.
He said to the President: You are spending too much.
That is the understatement of the 21st century. He is spending $1
billion to $2 billion a day on an undeclared, unauthorized,
unconstitutional war in Iran. He has given us one-quarter of all the
debt that has been created in the United States from George Washington
until today. That is under the Trump administration.
The gentleman represents that he spoke to the President and said: You
are spending too much.
The President's response was: I know we are, but I can't get them to
stop spending more.
Who is ``them''? Was that an implied critique of the Democrats? They
control the House. They control the Senate. They control the White
House. Who is President Trump in that vignette referring to? Is he
referring to the Republicans? He must be because they are the ones who
are controlling the Chamber, as they are proud to tell us. At least
until the end of this year, they are the ones doing it.
If Republicans think they support a balanced budget amendment, why
don't they start with a balanced budget? Just bring us one balanced
budget. That is all that we need from them.
Mr. Speaker, they have taken what is a math problem and tried to turn
it into a constitutional problem. Every family in America knows they
have got to make their expenses come within their means and within
their resources. Every family does that. Republicans don't want to do
that. They want to turn what is a simple math problem or an economic
problem into a constitutional problem.
To celebrate America's semiquincentennial, 250th anniversary, for the
first time they want to say that what we need to do is to amend our
Constitution to make us do what we want to do but we can't do. We don't
have the will and political courage to do it.
It was offered by the majority itself. We have got the will on our
side to do it. President Clinton did it, and we will fight to try to
make our resources match up with our expenses.
[[Page H2566]]
We have already heard that their side of the aisle is looking for a
military budget of $1.5 trillion for next year. They are looking for
$1.5 trillion for the war budget, for Secretary of War Hegseth. They
want $1.5 trillion. That is where they are headed: endless wars in the
Middle East, undeclared wars of choice, wars of aggression, not
authorized by Congress.
None of them will even utter a peep about it today. That is where we
are hemorrhaging money in America. Instead, they want to talk about a
hypothetical pie-in-the-sky constitutional amendment that no other
generation of Americans has ever needed before in order to do the right
thing.
What is their loyalty and fidelity to the Constitution? Let's say
they got their amendment. Right now, Article I, Section 8 says that
Congress must declare war. It is not the President, not Donald Trump,
not JD Vance, not Tulsi Gabbard, or somebody in their chat group.
Congress must declare war.
What do they do? They do nothing. They just let the President go
ahead and enter into his wars of whim and caprice, vanity, conceit,
imperial ambition, whatever. They do nothing. They won't even have a
vote to support it or oppose it. They won't have an honest debate about
it.
That is the war power, which Madison said was one of the essential
powers Congress must have, because the kings were always plunging their
countries into wars of conceit and vanity, imperial plunder and
corruption. So it had to be vested in the Representatives of the
people, but they won't follow that.
Mr. Speaker, how about the spending power? Exclusively Congress has
the power to spend money. It has to arise here in the House of
Representatives. We have the power to spend, and we have the power to
tax. The administration has been struck down dozens of times for
abusing our spending power, and they won't say a word about it.
What about the taxing power? Donald Trump became the first President
in American history to unilaterally impose tariffs, which is a huge tax
on our people. It is not on other countries and not on China. It is on
us. We told him it was unconstitutional. They wouldn't do anything,
with the exception of Representative Massie from Kentucky, who is the
conscience of the Republican Conference--although I don't mean to damn
him with faint praise--maybe a handful of others opposed the tariffs.
They all went along for the ride, even though we have the power to
impose tariffs. It has always been Congress that has established the
framework for tariffs, not the President. We can't make it up as we go
along, but that is what he did.
Of course, he was struck down even by the Supreme Court that has been
sliced and diced and gerrymandered to his advantage. Even that Supreme
Court struck it down on a 6-3 vote, but we hear nothing from our
colleagues about it.
What about the First Amendment? There shall be no law abridging the
freedom of speech. Yet, this is the most anti-free speech
administration the United States has ever seen. Donald Trump's chairman
of the FCC the other day said that broadcast licensees, television
stations, better watch out what they say about the war.
I can't think of a more naked violation of the First Amendment than
the government threatening to revoke broadcast licenses of media
entities who disagree with the President's policy, especially about
something as important to the American people as war.
They don't utter a single word about it. That is their demonstrated
fidelity to the Constitution. They are now saying: Yes, we are not
balancing the budget. We haven't presented a single balanced budget. If
we are made to do it through the Constitution, we will follow the
Constitution.
Fool me once, well, blame on you. Fool me twice, blame on me. We are
not falling for that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Arizona for a
spirited discussion of this important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I will take the example offered by the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Biggs) of President Clinton. We could take many historical
episodes, but we have time only for one.
President Clinton was determined to balance the budget, and he
returned hundreds of billions of dollars in a surplus to his successor
in office. He worked with the Republican-controlled Congress and led
them along to eliminate the deficit.
The government ran a huge surplus without the aid of a contrived
balanced budget constitutional amendment. Clinton bequeathed to his
successor, George W. Bush, famously a budget surplus of $236 billion,
which Bush and the GOP Congress quickly squandered on tax cuts for the
richest people in the country and then the staggeringly costly forever
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
Mr. Speaker, what do you know? History repeats itself. If it doesn't
repeat itself exactly, it certainly rhymes. What do we have now? They
have added $4 trillion to our debt with their massive giveaways to the
richest people in the country and the richest corporations.
What are we in now despite all of Donald Trump's campaign promises?
We are in another undeclared, unauthorized, forever war of regime
change, although it is not really a regime change war because the
President obviously doesn't care about democracy or human rights in
Iran any more than he cares about democracy or human rights in America.
In any event, we are there. We are in that war, spending $1 billion to
$2 billion a day.
What do our colleagues do to try to deal with this fiscal
catastrophe? They offer a balanced budget constitutional amendment,
saying this is a bipartisan problem we are in. It is a pox on
everybody's house. Let's just amend the Constitution to make us do what
we really want to do but we can't do because we don't have the
political resolve and the courage to do it.
{time} 1310
At the same time, they don't have the political resolve and courage
to exercise Congress' powers over war. They don't have the resolve and
courage to exercise Congress' power over spending or over taxes or over
our ability to regulate commerce domestically or nationally. They have
given it all away to the President of the United States, when we are
the Article I branch. We have the power. We can do it if we are willing
to exercise it.
What is the President's power? It is very simple: to take care that
the laws are faithfully executed.
If we pass a balanced budget, the President will have to remain
within it. If we are going to say that we are going to have a debate
about that war, that he can't just run off to war and start plundering
the public fisc and spending billions of dollars of the people's money,
he can't do it. Yet, our colleagues in the majority will not exercise
any kind of discipline or institutional self-respect.
Mr. Speaker, the Framers of the Constitution thought that people in
Congress would stand up for congressional power, just like the
President would stand up for Presidential power and would always try to
aggrandize the power of the executive branch, and the Supreme Court
would stand up for the power of judicial review and what the courts do.
Yet, they thought that, as Madison put it in Federalist 10, ambition
would counteract ambition. We would stand up for ourselves.
Our colleagues in the majority will not stand up for congressional
powers under the Constitution of the United States, so they want to
finger paint some more on the Constitution by adding their balanced
budget constitutional amendment.
We don't need a balanced budget constitutional amendment, which will
be a fiscal straitjacket in times like COVID-19 or times of war, where
Congress needs the flexibility. All we need is for the majority to
bring us a balanced budget, show some fiscal discipline, and show some
fiscal resolve. Then, we can take it seriously.
Otherwise, it just seems like a massive, fantastical distraction from
what is actually taking place in America today and on Earth, which is
we have a President who is bulldozing everything from the White House
itself to the Bill of Rights to the separation of powers.
What do we have on the other side of the aisle? It is nothing but
legislative
[[Page H2567]]
accomplices in all of this fiscal and constitutional irresponsibility.
They want to take a simple math problem and displace everybody's
attention by trying to turn it into a constitutional issue.
Mr. Speaker, that wasn't the handiwork of James Madison. That wasn't
the handiwork of Alexander Hamilton, who took balanced budgets very
seriously. They didn't think that America needed it.
If the political leadership is not rising to the task, then we need
new political leadership. If this congressional majority can't do it,
let's elect a new congressional majority, but let's not throw the
Constitution into the fire with all of the other constitutional
principles that have been set ablaze by this administration.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Madam Speaker, hyperbole and sophistry right here on the floor of the
House from politicians, who would have thunk it? Really, who would have
thunk it? I get a big kick out of that.
Do you know what the national debt was when Barack Obama became
President? It was $8 trillion. Do you know what it was when he left? It
was $20 trillion.
Do you know what the gentleman from Maryland did? He defended every
wild-eyed, anticonstitutional program and every abuse of the First
Amendment under the Biden administration. When you had reporters being
castigated, investigated, and prosecuted, not a peep from him. Not a
peep, but, boy golly, he is going to come up here and attack President
Trump. That is what he is going to do, and then he has the audacity to
talk about abasement--abasement of this body, and to say that we have
absolute control over all three bodies.
I wish we did. That would mean that we had 60 Republican Senators in
the Senate. Quite frankly, I have a major problem with that because
that is a supermajoritarian body under the cloture rule. That wasn't
contemplated by the Founders either. They thought it would be a simple
majority.
The rationale for his argument is that James Madison and Alexander
Hamilton wouldn't have said it, but do you know what? James Madison and
Alexander Hamilton would have said that we are not going to have direct
elections of Senators. They are going to be elected by their State
legislature.
That rationale doesn't make sense in this argument. It is specious
and weak. That is the rationale that my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle are throwing at us today.
The gentleman said that we have never needed a balanced budget
amendment before. Perhaps he is correct, but we sure have a massive
structural deficit today. We have a structural deficit because, even
though we bring in a record amount--a record amount--of revenue, we
keep spending more. This body doesn't have the political will.
That is the point that our side has been making. We don't have the
political will, not on our side or the minority's side. My colleagues
on the other side of the aisle want to turn this constantly into a
partisan affair. I am saying that both sides have recklessly spent too
much--both sides.
Madam Speaker, do you know who is punished by it? It is not us. It is
not us. It is the American people. It is the American people who are
taking the burden of feckless, blind spending and reckless spending.
Even if you get the record amount of revenue, this body is not going
to make a concomitant amount of spending. It is going to spend more. It
will always spend more. We will always spend more. Only if we have a
balanced budget amendment, which, by the way, used to be a bipartisan
issue.
It used to be a bipartisan issue on the national debt and deficit.
Both parties' national security leaders used to say that that is our
number one security threat. I mean for 25 years, a generation or more.
Madam Speaker, we don't hear that today from my colleagues. It is too
bad. I wish we did. Man, I wish we did. I wish we could both say: Let's
put this together. It is delusional. It is delusional. The fact of the
matter is that what was spent during COVID--massive amounts, literally
trillions of dollars--without any productive capacity to go with it
fueled the Biden-era inflation, and we are dealing with that today.
Oddly enough, the inflation rate under President Trump is back down
to almost what it was when he left. That is the reality.
How about my Democratic colleagues saying that we are going to put in
the Green New Deal program. Remember that one? Yes. It was $93 trillion
worth of spending with no pay-for over a 10-year period. It was $93
trillion.
Medicare for all, $33 trillion over a 10-year period, no pay-for.
Madam Speaker, do you know what the pay-for is? We are going to print
more money. We are going to print more money, and do you know what that
does? It devalues your currency. By the way, the valuation of currency
is the classic definition of ``inflation'' because you can't buy as
much with the same dollar. You are always going to need more.
People think that we have seen hyperinflation. We haven't seen
hyperinflation. Do you know when we are going to see hyperinflation? We
are going to see hyperinflation when the bond markets start saying:
Guess what. You guys are effectively bankrupt, and we are not lending
you any more money.
That is when the big calamity hits. When that hits, there won't be
anybody here who can say that this is a partisan issue. Both parties
will be at fault.
I pray to God that both sides here today will vote for this
amendment. Get it to the people. Let the people actually impose upon us
what 49 States have, and that is a requirement for a balanced budget.
If we couldn't print our own money, we would have already collapsed.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res.
139, a straightforward, commonsense balanced budget amendment to the
United States Constitution.
Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have consistently supported
solutions to address Washington's top-down, one-size-fits-all approach
to spending. For decades, Washington has spent beyond its means,
avoided difficult decisions, and relied on borrowing to fund an ever-
expanding government. That approach has proven unsustainable, and today
the consequences are impossible to ignore.
History has shown that we cannot afford to wait any longer. In 1995,
when our national debt was $4.9 trillion, the Senate failed to pass a
balanced budget amendment, by a single vote.
The last time this house debated this important measure was in April
2018--just 8 years ago, but that was before a global pandemic, and our
debt reached $21 trillion. This measure was critical then and is
essential today with our national debt now exceeding $38 trillion, and
annual deficits are approaching $2 trillion.
This is not abstract math. Rising debt means higher interest costs,
fewer resources available for national priorities, and a growing burden
for future generations. Working families, farmers, and small businesses
in central Arkansas live within their means. They make responsible
choices every day about spending, saving, and prioritizing their needs.
The federal government should operate with the same level of
discipline.
Yet Washington cannot get its excessive spending under control.
Addressing this issue is long overdue. A balanced budget amendment is
just one tool to get our fiscal house in order. Its purpose is simple:
restore accountability and discipline to a broken budget process. It
would require Congress to confront tradeoffs honestly, set clear
priorities, and stop treating unlimited borrowing as a substitute for
responsible policymaking.
Passing this sends a clear message that Congress is serious about
reining in spending and putting our Nation on a sustainable fiscal
path. Our Nation must spend within its means.
I will continue to support efforts that restore fiscal discipline,
strengthen our economy, and ensure a stronger future for our children
and grandchildren.
{time} 1320
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of West Virginia). The question
is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) that
the House suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution, H.J. Res.
139.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
[[Page H2568]]
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.
____________________