[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17780-17786]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1920
         PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS HOUR: THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the 
opportunity to allow members of the Progressive Caucus to continue this 
discussion and as well to continue to educate the American public.
  It is worth noting that part of the discussion that occurred on the 
floor of the House is that we have come to this point, if I might say, 
through a peculiar process. Some might call it hostage-taking, but 
certainly it is a process that has skewed, if you will, the regular 
order of this Congress.
  This little book, the Constitution of the United States, that can fit 
into a document of this size, even though it is found in law books and 
many major large-sized books in the Library of Congress, hopefully 
convinces the American people of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. It 
is noteworthy that they did not include a balanced budget amendment in 
the first group of amendments called the Bill of Rights. And even as 
they proceeded, they took the challenge of speaking to any number of 
issues, the freeing of the slaves in the 13th, 14th, and 15th 
Amendments, giving the right to vote finally in the 15th Amendment, 
suggesting that there should be no obstacles to voting. They went on to 
the 24th Amendment to indicate that there should be no poll tax, the 
19th Amendment giving women the right to vote. But never did they feel 
the necessity to talk about a balanced budget amendment.
  The reason, I believe, that they cast their lot on the responsible 
thinking of Members of Congress is because that is what we are supposed 
to do. We are supposed to be responsible Members of the United States 
Congress with no intervening body, no layered approach, no handcuffing 
of our deliberation. And that's what a balanced budget amendment is all 
about.
  You've just listened to a portion of our debate. We will go on into 
tomorrow, mind you, taking up 5 hours of time that could be dedicated 
to coming together around job creation.
  The underlying premise of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is that two-thirds 
of this body, two-thirds of the other body, and three-quarters of the 
States must consent to a balanced budget amendment. Thank goodness that 
our Founding Fathers made amending the Constitution so difficult. And 
that is because they wanted us to be thoughtful. So when we think of 
the amendments that are in this book, this little book that starts off 
with ``We, the people,'' a part of the Declaration of Independence, and 
then the beginning part of the Constitution says that we have come 
together ``to form a more perfect union,'' they've made it that 
challenging so that we could be thoughtful in our moving amendments.
  Maybe for those of us who are in certain types of church families, 
whether it be Baptist or the underlying overriding general Protestant 
structure, we know that there are pastors, ministers, reverends, board 
of trustees, a board, or maybe a deacon board, there is some sort of 
policy board, and then there is a congregation. The reason why I 
mentioned the faith community is because we can get very sensitive 
about how our places of worship are run, how the business part of it is 
run. And you would wonder how many congregations would welcome the 
overlay of some outside entity--albeit formed by members--that was over 
the pastor, that was over the board of trustees, that was over the 
congregation. That's what we have done and forced ourselves to do with 
the intervening supercommittee that was put together by the concept of 
needing to raise the debt ceiling and then adding into it another hot 
pepper pot, and that is, of course, having to be forced to pass a 
balanced budget amendment.
  I want to refer my colleagues again to a headline in a local paper, 
Sheila Jackson Lee can't slow down the Republican balanced-budget 
amendment freight train. It's not necessarily because it was my name, 
but that's just what we have experienced, a freight train.
  I have no doubt that there will be a strong vote tomorrow. I am 
hoping that the debate will generate enough thought to cause many of my 
colleagues to reflect on whether or not we could, in the regular order, 
do some of the suggestions that have been made. Taxation of investment 
transactions, where many who are well vested and who have experienced 
the bounty of this land would be willing to contribute and to 
understand how we should move forward. The expiration of the Bush tax 
cuts, another revenue-generator that would, I believe, increase the 
opportunities for reducing the debt. Getting rid of the mighty, if you 
will, bungled opportunity to help seniors, becoming a gigantic handout 
budgetary fiasco. Medicare part D--ask every senior when you visit them 
at their senior centers, are they begging for the closing of the 
doughnut hole? But more importantly, are they trying to get relief from 
Medicare part D? Give them relief, close the doughnut hole, and you 
will find a huge amount of money going into the Treasury.
  Going back to the Affordable Care Act and implementing the public 
option and allowing the United States to negotiate the cost of 
medications, prescription drugs under Medicare--just watch the debt go 
down, down, down. So I want to recite, as I did on the floor of the 
House, the words of Chairman Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal 
Reserve, who indicated to the Committee on Financial Services, We 
really don't want to just cut, cut, cut. You need to be a little bit 
cautious about sharp cuts in the very near term because of the 
potential impact on the recovery. That doesn't at all preclude--in 
fact, I believe it's entirely consistent with--a longer-term program 
that will bring our budget into a sustainable position.
  Nowhere did he say, Well, why don't you just do a balanced budget 
amendment with no thinking and not being able to deal with emergencies 
beyond another vote by the Congress, sometimes a majority, sometimes 
even longer.
  Mr. Speaker, a balanced budget amendment was wrong when our Founding 
Fathers began to write the Constitution. It was wrong as the Founding 
Fathers wrote amendment after amendment. It was wrong to think about it 
in World War II, to think about it in the 1929 financial collapse, to 
think about it in the conflicts of the 1950s, the Vietnam war or wars 
thereafter, such as the Persian Gulf, the Iraq war, and, of course, the 
Afghan war, Kosovo, Bosnia, Albania, Libya, and places where we've been 
called to act on behalf of the American people in defending our honor 
and democracy and protecting the vulnerable around the world. It is 
wrong, wrong, wrong.
  What the American people who voted for Members of the United States 
Congress are asking us to do is what the Progressive Caucus is doing: 
It is finding a way, first of all, to submit a reasoned budget that has 
seen a responsible approach to addressing the needs of revenue-raising 
and belt-tightening. What it is also asking is, as the Progressive 
Caucus is doing, drafting a major omnibus jobs bill that will 
incorporate a wide range of initiatives, many not costly initiatives, 
that will bring about jobs in America not only for those languishing 2 
and 3 years unemployed but for our wonderful college graduates and 
others that are coming out of the institutions of higher learning.
  But as Dr. Jeffrey Sachs said, We have even more challenges because, 
although we all point to college graduates and going to institutions of 
higher learning, maybe I should wake up America and let you know that 
we have some of the lowest numbers of college graduation rates probably 
in the history of America: white males at 34 percent, African Americans 
somewhere under 20, and Hispanics 11 percent.
  So the balanced budget amendment is not going to invest in the human 
resources of America. It's not going to

[[Page 17781]]

answer the question in our competitive reach as we compete around the 
world. It's not going to respond to the numbers of Ph.D.s that India is 
now producing, probably in years to come more so than people in the 
United States, or the number of masters and Ph.D.s in China.

                              {time}  1930

  Our reach in competition is way beyond our borders. But everyone 
knows that America's marketability is our genius in invention and 
manufacturing, our genius as it relates to prescription drugs, our 
genius in medical science and medicine, our genius in Silicon Valley 
and the little Silicon Valleys that are springing up around America.
  Our genius, for example, in the MD Anderson Cancer Center located in 
Houston, Texas, the fourth largest city in the Nation, magnificent 
research occurring in that institution, seeking a viable 21st-century, 
22nd-century cure for this devastating disease, but also branching out 
for creative thinking in the next generation of research. That is the 
genius of America. We are not broke, and we're certainly not broke in 
our genius.
  Let us be reminded as we debate the balanced budget amendment that 
our corporations are flush with cash. Our banks are flush with cash, 
and countries around the world are eager to have us hold their money in 
the framework of loans that are being made to us. If they wish to loan 
to anyone, they are eager to loan to the United States. Why? Because 
they believe their cash is safe.
  So it is important that we are thoughtful in the idea of a balanced 
budget amendment and why now. Why are we doing a balanced budget 
amendment in the course of the need to do, as Dr. Sachs has said, long-
term, systematic changes in how we do business in the United States of 
America?
  So just take a fact sheet on the question of the balanced budget 
amendment. It came about because we went to the brink of raising the 
debt ceiling, something that had been done many times since President 
Eisenhower, going forward to Presidents thereafter, many times under 
Bush I, the 41st President of the United States; many times under the 
42nd President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton; many 
times under the 43rd President of the United States.
  And lo and behold, an African American President ascends to the 
Presidency, voted on by the American people, and the debt ceiling 
becomes a crisis in the making. And, frankly, the pundits, economists 
around the world indicated it was not the question of raising the debt 
ceiling. It was the debacle shown around the world that the Members of 
Congress were not allowed to get their business in order. They were not 
allowed to debate this in a reasoned manner. They were strung and 
strangled by voices that are driven by outside party politics, in this 
instance the Tea Party and those who adhere to pledges governed by Mr. 
Norquist.
  So it is important that a constitutional debate be separated from the 
entrenched political views that would disallow a thoughtful discussion. 
We could have raised the debt ceiling with a thoughtful discussion; but 
it came with not strings but ladened with heavy steel, bricks tied to 
our arms and body as we walked slowly and dragged down.
  So we have a supercommittee. With great respect for those working, I 
have the greatest respect for our colleagues and wish them well. We 
have the requirement of a balanced budget amendment, a constitutional 
discussion dragged down by the requirement that you're not going to get 
the debt ceiling raised. You're not going to be able to pay the bills 
for our seniors and our soldiers on the battlefield if you didn't hang 
with all of this weight to carry forth an instruction that really is 
not done thoughtfully.
  So here's what we get with the balanced budget amendment. We risk 
default by the United States by requiring a supermajority to raise the 
debt limit. It destroys 15 million jobs and doubles unemployment to 18 
percent. If enacted in fiscal year 2012, nonpartisan economists with 
Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC, estimate that enactment of a balanced 
budget amendment would eliminate 15 million jobs, double the 
unemployment rate to 18 percent, and cause the economy to shrink by 17 
percent.
  Remember what I said, dragged down by steel anvils tied to our legs 
and arms, our ankles, around our necks. This is what we will be doing 
tomorrow. This is what the vote will entail tomorrow.
  It harms seniors by cutting Medicare and Social Security and veterans 
by reducing their benefits, even though Social Security is solvent 
until 2035, requiring a thoughtful decision of how we go forward. And 
even though there are ways to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse from 
Medicare without cutting providers, we want to go with a balanced 
budget amendment which could result in Medicare being cut by about $750 
billion, Social Security $1.2 trillion, and veterans benefits $85 
million through 2021.
  How many of us joined our neighbors in celebrating Veterans Day last 
Friday? I did. We went to the Veterans hospital and shook the hands of 
bedridden veterans and promised them, by giving them cards of cheer, 
that we would not in any way cut their benefits. These cuts will result 
in draconian cuts, worse than the Ryan GOP budget. It opens the doors 
for courts to intervene--and the gentleman from Illinois may want to 
comment on this--in Federal budget decisions by placing the balanced 
budget amendment into the Constitution. It will generate enormous--in 
fact, there will be a line to the courthouse on constitutional 
challenges on cutting Pell Grants and cutting food stamps and cutting 
housing and cutting veterans benefits, as I said.
  And then, of course, more than 270 organizations representing people 
that are the most vulnerable have begged us to unshackle the steel 
anvils from our legs and arms and do the people's business.
  I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I wanted to ask the gentlelady a question 
because I think she touched upon a thoughtful comment in her remarks.
  I can imagine since every Member of Congress and every candidate for 
Congress is running for office and they run to uphold the Constitution 
of the United States, they swear to uphold the Constitution and its 
various provisions within the context of the debate that we have here 
on the floor of the Congress. In my district, I run on a campaign to 
try and provide better housing for my constituents. I run a campaign 
trying to provide health care for the health care-less, those who don't 
have health care. I run trying to say that the Federal Government has 
an obligation to address issues of unemployment and provide jobs. And 
when the private sector won't invest its money in and on the south side 
of Chicago, that it should do more. I run my campaigns arguing that 
people should get involved in the political process because if they 
vote for me, I can provide them some hope. I will come to the floor of 
the Congress and have their grievances redressed by the Government of 
the United States.
  Under the balanced budget amendment as proposed by the gentleman from 
Virginia, it seems to me that anyone running for Congress in the future 
isn't going to be running making promises or commitments to do anything 
about the social ills or the gaps that exist within our society. They 
will be running for office saying, What I guarantee is you cannot have 
better housing, that you cannot concern yourself about the Federal 
Government's role in health care, or that the Federal Government should 
have no role in addressing issues of unemployment. Let the private 
sector work its way to the south side of Chicago or to Houston, Texas.
  The gentlelady's argument seems to suggest that the balanced budget 
amendment itself changes the framework and the structure of America; 
and instead of candidates running for office making the case for hope 
and making the case for change and encouraging the promise of America, 
it's just the opposite.
  Would the gentlelady comment on that, please.

[[Page 17782]]


  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. The gentleman is eloquent in his analysis. 
And as an appropriator, the gentleman knows full well the value of 
regular order. That is that the voices of not only the appropriators, 
meaning those on the Appropriations Committee, but other Members are 
able to, in essence, craft the ultimate appropriations, maybe working 
with a budget, maybe not, based upon the current needs of the American 
people.

                              {time}  1940

  The balanced budget amendment will stand not as a guard at the door 
of the United States Congress--the doors are to my left. We come in and 
out. It will literally be a lock and chain on the door because it will 
say to those who are running for office, in essence, you are powerless. 
You will either be as other litigants in the courthouse in the third 
branch of government seeking refuge for your constituents, or you will 
make at being a Member of Congress and spend most of your time fighting 
the balanced budget amendment in the courts.
  The gentleman is absolutely correct, and I would add to this that, 
even though they make a way for disasters and wars, even if it is 
presumed to be under the jurisdiction of the President's executive 
powers to even expend any dollars, one would have to come to this body 
to receive a majority vote by this House and a majority vote by the 
other House.
  That means that all branches of government will be under this lock. 
The President will not be able to act as a President. The Congress will 
have disagreement as to whether or not it's a war we support or 
conflict we support or an emergency we support, and, in essence, to the 
gentleman's very fine point, and as I indicated, we will be clogging 
the Federal courts on each iota of disagreement dealing with from vast 
issues of protecting the homeland to the necessity of defending the 
principles of democracy around the world. And I know there are some 
probably listening and they are probably applauding because they are 
saying, I don't want to help anyone anyhow. But some of that help falls 
back on the safety and security of the American people.
  What is going on in Somalia, the frightening devastation of death 
that we are not acknowledging, might be a cause for the support of the 
American Government to help in the survival of those people. We will be 
in a stranglehold from doing that. The crisis in Syria, which I wanted 
to just make mention of and to ask Dr. Assad, as the Arab League has 
asked, and as I continue to ask and as my Syrian American neighbors 
have asked, to step down, which might warrant the United States joining 
with people of goodwill to help the Syrian people, we will find 
ourselves in court for each step of our responsibilities. The oath we 
take, that will be in conflict with the balanced budget amendment as it 
is presently written by the gentleman from Virginia.
  By the way, if it is not passed as it is, a long-winded process will 
generate, and I assume that it is the same balanced budget amendment on 
the other body, but this will be a long, protracted process while we 
continue to languish and not do the people's bidding. I would rather do 
the people's bidding than I would want to, again, yield to a process 
that by its very nature is fractured and does not adhere to the 
Constitution as relates to having control of the pursestrings, being 
able to raise armies, being able to provide for the general welfare of 
the American people.
  What are we talking about here? Am I going to have to prosecute a 
case in the Federal courts on the question of the general welfare of 
the American people when we will be thwarted here on the floor of the 
House because of the balanced budget amendment?
  I would be happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I'm 
not so sure that many of the distinguished colleagues appreciate that 
the distinguished gentlelady from Texas was a jurist before she came to 
the Congress of the United States. And so we heard from the author of 
the amendment, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, that a three-
fifths requirement would be required by this House, I believe, to raise 
taxes.
  Now, unlike the Senate, which has a staggered election process, every 
6 years is usually the tenure of a Senator, here in the House, Members 
of Congress run every 2 years. Essentially they're elected a year, then 
they run a year, then they are elected a year, then they run a year. 
And I'm finding it nearly impossible to imagine that in the event that 
revenues are at a shortfall in the Congress of the United States that 
there will ever be a Congress under the three-fifths requirement as 
spoken of in this amendment that would ever be willing to raise taxes 
on wealthy Americans in order to help balance the Nation's budget or to 
pay for programs. The politics of the way in which Congress is elected, 
that we serve 2 years, that we essentially serve a year, run a year, 
serve a year, do politics a year, which is a fundamental tenet of our 
system and a Constitutional requirement for the House, it just seems to 
me that inherent in the idea that somehow this Congress is going to 
have enough political courage in an election year, which, by the way, 
is every year for Members of Congress, that they're going to be willing 
to raise taxes in order to help provide for necessary needs of the 
American people.
  As a jurist, would the gentlelady please comment on this idea of a 
three-fifths requirement in order to move revenue through this 
building.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I want to remind the gentleman, I'm looking 
at a statement that my office brought to my attention that I was on the 
floor of the House September 22, 2004. Let me say that I wasn't on the 
floor of the House. I was in a markup on a proposed balanced budget 
amendment. And I had in the markup, Mr. Jackson, an amendment called 
the ``poor children's amendment.'' In achieving a balanced budget, 
outlays shall not be reduced in a manner that disproportionately 
affects outlays for education, nutrition and health programs for poor 
children. That was called the ``poor children's amendment,'' dated 
November 22, 2004.
  We were dealing with an amendment at that time. It seems like we've 
done it over and over again. But I want to raise that to say you are 
very right in your analysis. What that means is that those who would be 
on the side of saying that we have a crisis with poor children, with 
nutrition, with the SCHIP program, children's health insurance program 
which is now merged into our Affordable Care Act, any other programs 
that deal specifically with the poor--let me just cite this: 2008, 
15.45 million impoverished children in the Nation, 20.7 percent of 
America's youth. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that there are 
currently 5.6 million Texans living in poverty. We have the most 
uninsured.
  What it means is that Congresswoman Jackson Lee would battle it out 
in the courts. I would leave the floor of the House. I couldn't get the 
amount increased, and I would challenge the constitutionality of the 
balanced budget amendment. That would be part of my remedy because I 
couldn't raise up a three-fifths in this body, which is a 
supermajority, in essence, a supermajority to do the constitutional 
right that we have for taxation.
  The House has the pursestrings, and that's a constitutional task. 
We've now changed that simple majority that has been written by our 
Founding Fathers who were building a nation and said, when building a 
nation, we don't want to be reckless with spending, but let us have a 
majority that will allow us to tax ourselves and build a nation. We're 
now arguing that it will be three-fifths.
  And as we have made it your point, a constitutional amendment, as you 
know that we've gone to courts on the Ninth Amendment, the right to 
privacy. We are presently in the throngs of the amendments dealing with 
due process; and out of that 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments came the 
Voting Rights Act of 1965, Civil Rights Act of 1964. That generates 
court action. To your point, we will be in court. But I will say this. 
We will be in court on defense matters as well.

[[Page 17783]]

  Let me just indicate a point about defense. In order to spend more 
than has been appropriated, agencies tasked with defense and national 
security will need approval from Congress. This increased reliance on 
emergency appropriations will have detrimental effects on the sound 
functioning of our defense and national security institutions. The more 
these institutions are forced to rely on emergency funding, the more 
unpredictable these budgets will become.
  This legislation would allow a military conflict or threat to 
national security to take the budget out of balance. However, in order 
to authorize additional funds for military engagement or threats to 
national security that require action, Congress will need to pass 
legislation citing a specific amount. So the gentleman who was on the 
floor is very accurate in what the balanced budget amendment will do is 
kick us off budget if we have an emergency.
  Might I just say, as my voice is coming to somewhat of a raspy end, 
that in addition to being off budget for this Congress, those of us--I 
see the good speaker, a dear friend from Texas. Those of us who are 
familiar with State budgets, we know that there is a capital budget, 
and we don't have one here in the Federal Government. And so we spend, 
if people would know, monies out of the Federal Government to ensure 
the infrastructure of America.

                              {time}  1950

  Just a few days ago, Texas had articles talking about our water 
level. Our water is a lifeline for our ranchers, and something has to 
be done. I expect the legislature will dig deep to address the 
diminishing water sources and the water shelf that we have to deal with 
in places where we have to keep our ranchers going.
  By the way, ranchers of Texas, I love you; and I am proud to be from 
Texas where ranching still goes on. You hold on. We have to deal with 
it; it is a Federal proposition to deal with water all over America. So 
all of this would be kicked off budget. And I would hope maybe my Texas 
colleagues would be in the courts with me when they would be denied the 
right to secure Federal funding to help Texas that is now suffering 
from enormous deprivation of water because of the drought that we had 
and some problems that come about through Mother Nature.
  May I pause for a moment and ask the Speaker how much time is 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 28 minutes remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Then let me just add a few more points to 
my commentary on this.
  Let me just say that in my district in Texas, more than 190,000 
people live below the poverty line. And I want to take Mr. Jackson's 
comments--I will say that he took the words out of our collective 
mouths in the Congressional Progressive Caucus that this issue of 
poverty is really unspoken, but is in need of raising the ante. And 
it's the highest rate in 17 years.
  The thresholds proposed in H.J. Res. 2 are completely unrealistic. 
Even during Ronald Reagan's Presidency, before the baby boomers had 
reached retirement age, swelling the population eligible for Social 
Security and Medicare when health care costs were lower, Federal 
spending averaged 22 percent of GDP. We don't have that low number that 
was offered in the Judiciary Committee, but it is unrealistic as this 
country grows.
  My friends, the country has gotten larger. We can't have the same 
percentages that we had under President Eisenhower. Only 5 years in the 
last 50 has the Federal Government posted an annual budget surplus. All 
of the years the government has been in a deficit. We must contain it 
and restrain it. We must raise money. We can do that. We've just got to 
move the various ghosts of tax pledges and other third-party restraints 
away from the Halls of Congress and move the blocker of doing 
intelligent work, and that would be a balanced budget amendment.
  So I believe it is crucial, as this debate goes forward, that we 
understand the Constitution and the American people understand that you 
pass a balanced budget amendment and you give up the vote that you 
cherish every 2 years, when you vote for a Member of Congress who is 
allowed to vote for or against, who will stand on the floor of the 
House and advocate, under the Constitution of the United States, the 
authority of this House of Representatives to institute taxes through 
the discourse of debate and the appropriate use of those taxes to raise 
up the general welfare of the American Government and people.
  With that in mind, I would beseech of you, as I close, to be able to 
truly understand the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States. 
Allow me to read this into the Record:

       We the people of the United States, in order to form a more 
     perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic 
     tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the 
     general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to 
     ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this 
     Constitution for the United States of America.

  I beg of you, my colleagues who will vote tomorrow, have this 
Constitution in your hand. Posterity can come through the reasonable 
work. Posterity can come through the thanking of the supercommittee for 
its work and moving beyond the supercommittee into 2012. Begin to 
analyze the needs of the American people and vote for revenue and vote 
for belt-tightening.
  Don't take the Constitution and shred it tomorrow, voting for a 
balanced budget amendment that no Founding Father saw fit to implement, 
and throwing America's children, veterans, returning soldiers, and 
seniors into the Federal courthouses of America and depending upon the 
Federal court system for justice. We can do justice tomorrow. We can 
join with the Congressional Progressive Caucus long range, but we can 
do justice tomorrow and reject the balanced budget amendment on behalf 
of the constitutional rights of the people, and on behalf of the people 
of the United States of America.
  I am happy to yield control of the remaining time to the gentleman 
from Illinois.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentlelady.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) is 
recognized for the remainder of the hour as the designee of the 
minority leader.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. May I inquire of the Speaker how much time 
remains in the Democratic hour.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will have 25 minutes.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  Over the course of this session of Congress, I have given a number of 
Special Order speeches in order to get across to this body the basic 
needs of the American people and how the Constitution is the best means 
of meeting those needs.
  In April, I came to the floor and denounced a balanced budget 
amendment as the end of progress in our society. It would appear that 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle didn't pay close 
attention. Perhaps, as they often do, they blatantly ignored what I 
believe was the logic and the reason behind my arguments.
  Either way, Mr. Speaker, here we are just a few months from my 
original statement against the BBA and the House leadership has brought 
a balanced budget amendment to the floor. This week, we will cast our 
vote on what Ezra Klein referred to in the Washington Post as ``the 
worst idea in Washington.''
  In a New York Times editorial published on July 4, the dangers of the 
balanced budget amendment are laid out in plain English--no frills, 
none of the rhetoric that our constituents fall prey to. As simple as 
the BBA sounds, requiring the Federal Government to balance its books 
every year would be like ``telling families they cannot take out a 
mortgage or a car loan or do any other kind of borrowing, no matter how 
sensible the purchase or how credit worthy they may be.''
  Worse than just balancing our budget, the amendments that we will see 
in the coming weeks will force the supermajority to approve any 
borrowing to

[[Page 17784]]

finance spending and cap all spending at under 20 percent of GDP. 
Additionally, a two-thirds majority would be required to raise taxes, 
making that process effectively impossible.
  Sometimes a meaningful investment leads to greater returns in the 
long run. The average American can't afford to purchase a car, a house, 
or an education outright. They need a loan or some arrangement in which 
they owe money. They might be expected to pay installments at a later 
date, but the product of that loan could get them to a job interview, 
in a house, or in a university. A car could get them home after a long 
night at the office. A car lets them purchase groceries and, in turn, 
contribute to the success of the car industry. A house provides safety 
and security for one's family. An education adds to the quality of a 
person's life and the betterment of society. A loan may not always be 
the most desirable situation, but no one would deny its necessity.
  The chief argument used to sway forlorn Americans to the misguided 
belief that a BBA would benefit our Nation is this: each and every home 
has to balance its checkbook every month, so why shouldn't our Federal 
Government do the same? First of all, let me be clear: you cannot 
compare the budget of the Government of the United States to the budget 
of a household. It's simply not realistic.
  Aside from that critical flaw, the truth is that while each and every 
American home must balance its bank account, this doesn't include the 
mortgage, the car note, or the car loans that haven't been paid back 
yet. A true balanced budget is unrealistic in almost any scenario.

                              {time}  2000

  Lest my words again fall on deaf ears, Mr. Speaker, let's start at 
the beginning. For my colleagues who did not hear me the first time, 
this may be a little bit redundant, but I'd like to address the history 
of the balanced budget amendment. It's been a long road.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, if I weren't so appalled by the nature of this 
effort, I'd be apt to congratulate my friends across the aisle for 
never letting go of their dream. I can absolutely relate, as I have a 
few constitutional amendments myself. I guess the Disney phrase, 
``Anything can happen when you believe'' really did stick with them.
  They believed since 1936 when, in reaction to FDR's New Deal, 
Republican Congressman Harold Knutson of Minnesota introduced the first 
version of the amendment in 1936. Like many constitutional amendments, 
this resolution did not receive a hearing or a vote.
  During President Dwight D. Eisenhower's first term, the Judiciary 
Committee of a barely Democratic Senate held its first hearing on this 
amendment. It, again, did not receive a vote.
  After these partial defeats, the BBA supporters shifted their focus 
to the States. From 1975 to 1980, 30 State legislatures passed 
resolutions calling for a constitutional convention to propose this 
amendment directly to the States.
  The election of President Ronald Reagan and a Republican Senate in 
1980 renewed hopes for the balanced budget amendment passed by 
Congress. While the Senate did adopt the amendment in 1982, it failed 
to garner the necessary two-thirds majority in the House. This failure 
energized conservative groups such as the National Taxpayers Union and 
the National Tax Limitations Committee to refocus on State action.
  In 1982 and 1983 the Alaska and Missouri legislatures passed 
resolutions supporting the BBA, bringing the total of number of these 
resolutions to 32, two short of the 34 needed for a convention. 
However, a growing concern about the scope of a constitutional 
convention led some States to withdraw their resolutions, re-shifting 
focus to congressional action.
  From 1990 to 1994 Congress would make three additional attempts to 
codify this amendment. All failed to garner the necessary two-thirds 
majority. However, the BBA made a comeback when it was included in 
former Speaker Newt Gingrich's Contract with America. Twenty-six days 
after taking office, the newly empowered Republican majority adopted 
the BBA, giving conservatives their first congressional win in a 
decade. Disappointment awaited in the Senate however, when two separate 
votes fell short of its adoption. This failure, along with the balanced 
budget and the balanced budget surplus at the decade's end, sapped any 
remaining congressional support for the BBA.
  There was renewed Republican support for the amendment in 2000, as it 
was included in the party's platform. The Bush tax cuts, wars in 
Afghanistan and Iraq, the passage of Medicare Part D, all unpaid for, 
led to massive deficit spending by Republicans that eventually led them 
to sweep the balanced budget amendment back under the rug. In fact, by 
2004 the Republican party had created such debt and was so embarrassed 
that they left any mention of a balanced budget amendment out of their 
platform.
  Again, in recent years, with the advent of the Tea Party and the 
return of extreme fiscal conservatism in the Republican party, there 
are currently 12 balanced budget amendments in the House and three in 
the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a troubling national debt and deficit, but the 
balanced budget amendment is not the solution. I've already addressed 
for you the chief argument that proponents of the BBA use to draw in 
more misinformed worshipers of flawed austerity, comparisons to 
everyday families.
  In the same vein of bandwagon fallacies, my colleagues across the 
aisle have consistently pointed to another entity that is required to 
balance its books, the States.
  Mr. Speaker, I, again, can't continue without pointing out a serious 
dilemma in comparing the governments of individual States to the 
Federal Government. Perhaps if our Founding Fathers had seen fit to 
stick with the Articles of Confederation, this argument might be more 
legitimate. But at the end of the day we, instead, find ourselves under 
the guidance of the Constitution of the United States, by which I'm 
able to stand here before you tonight as an elected official conveying 
the views of my constituents.
  The requirements and expectations of our Federal Government, to the 
great and continuous dismay of some of my colleagues, are now and 
forever different from those of the States. The Federal Government is 
bound to protect, via military force, and provide for the collective 
security of our Nation; maintain the national currency; determine the 
scope of the Federal courts; promote and encourage our Nation's 
scientific and technological advancements via patents; and even 
regulate trade between the States that make up this great Union. At the 
end of the day, the States rely on the Federal Government, much like 
the citizens of the United States.
  Alas, Mr. Speaker, since this logic doesn't seem to carry with my 
conservative friends, I would like to point out a few technical 
problems with this impressively mature ``the States do it'' argument. 
On its face, I'm willing to say this may be true. Nearly every State in 
the union has some form of a balanced budget requirement. 
Unfortunately, however, this has not kept them out of debt.
  Furthermore, their amendments have restricted their ability to care 
for their citizens in times of austerity or emergency. Quite frankly, I 
don't think that's an option for the Federal Government. And in the 
face of such an emergency, I think every constituent we represent would 
agree.
  According to a Forbes analysis of the global debt crisis in January 
of 2010, every single State in the country is carrying some form of 
debt. These debts range from as little as $17 per capita in Nebraska to 
$4,490 in Connecticut.
  In fiscal year 2012 approximately 44 States will face revenue 
shortfalls. Many are desperately looking for ways to declare their 
State bankrupt. Bankrupt. I say it again, Mr. Speaker, because this 
proposed amendment would place the Federal Government in an equally 
unacceptable predicament.
  For instance, in Rhode Island, judges and court workers have cut pay 
and left 53 positions unfilled. This is still not enough to balance 
their budget. As

[[Page 17785]]

a desperate last resort, the chief justice has begun to dispose of 
cases on backlog. Literally, the judge is tossing them out. Florida is 
in the same predicament.
  This past week I spoke to the Federal courts in the Northern District 
of Illinois. Federal workers being laid off and furloughed, and men and 
women who have pensions and long investments in the system being told 
that the Federal courts in the Northern District of Illinois can no 
longer sustain themselves. I told them I would bring their message back 
to this Congress.
  If this Congress can spend billions of dollars to fight a war in 
Afghanistan and Iraq, we can spend billions of dollars on scientific 
exploration, we can spend billions of dollars to put a man on the Moon, 
why can't we find the money in this Congress to put a man or a woman on 
their own two feet right here in America?
  My colleagues across the aisle are so concerned about handing our 
children and grandchildren any amount of national debt that they fail 
to realize we are setting future generations up for failure. States are 
already cutting too many services that make the American workforce 
strong and competitive. Should the Federal Government do the same, our 
legacy will be an America that is undereducated, ill-equipped to 
compete on a global level.
  What happens to America when both State and Federal Governments can't 
make the investments in the education our youth need to compete at the 
global level? When our State and national capitals are both hiding 
behind balanced budget amendments? What happens to America?
  The ones who will suffer won't be the conservatives pushing for this 
amendment. It will be our poor, our children, our veterans, our 
elderly, the disabled, the America that doesn't have an interest in 
corporate tax rates, subsidies for big oil companies, or whether the 
Federal Government or insurance company underwrites their flood 
insurance. Everyday America will suffer.
  The balanced budget amendment is the wrong key to the doors of 
prosperity. It fits inside the keyhole, it seems like a perfect match, 
but it really doesn't open the door. We twist it, we shake it, we 
fiddle with it, but wind up stripping the lock, doing more harm than 
good. And at the end of the day, we've moved no further, made no 
progress from where we started.
  A BBA is not going to solve America's deficit crisis. According to 
the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, Citizens for Tax Justice, 
and others, a Federal balanced budget amendment would damage our 
economy by making recessions deeper and more frequent, heighten the 
risk of default, and jeopardize the full faith and credit of the U.S. 
government, lead to reductions in needed investments in the future, 
favor wealthy Americans over middle- and low-income Americans by making 
it far more difficult to raise revenues and easier to cut programs. It 
would weaken the principle of majority rule, making balancing the 
budget more difficult.
  And no one, to my satisfaction, not on the Democratic side and not on 
the Republican side, has explained to me yet what qualifies a Federal 
judge to intervene in this budget process and make a judgment about 
what programs to cut.

                              {time}  2010

  Do they have degrees in economics? Have they studied programs? Have 
they studied the needs of constituents around the country? Have they 
been to Appalachia? Have they been to the barrios, the ghettos, and the 
trailer parks of our Nation?
  What qualifies a Federal judge to determine when someone's benefit or 
assistance should not be given to them? Nothing qualifies them, and yet 
this Congress votes tomorrow to change the Constitution of the United 
States as if their opinion should matter in this particular process.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to go into a little bit more detail about these 
faults because I need my colleagues to understand the level of damage 
they'll cause if they continue to sugar this bill and force it down the 
throats of the American people.
  First, a balanced budget amendment would damage the economy and make 
recessions deeper and more frequent. Under a BBA, Congress would be 
enforced to adopt a rigid fiscal policy requiring the budget to be 
balanced or in surplus every year regardless of the current economic 
situation or threat to the Nation's security. A sluggish economy with 
less revenue and more outgoing expenditures creates a deficit, as we've 
seen from recent events. A deficit necessitates economic stimulation in 
order to reverse negative growth.
  This is why in the last session of Congress the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act invested in roads, bridges, mass transit, and other 
infrastructure. It provided 95 percent of working Americans with an 
immediate tax cut, extended unemployed insurance and COBRA for 
Americans hurt by the economic downturn through no fault of their own. 
If Congress were forced to function under a BBA, deficit reduction 
would be mandated, even more so during periods of slow or stalled 
economic growth, which is the opposite of what is needed in this 
situation.
  My Republican colleagues have taken to finger-pointing about the 
stimulus package. Every day I see a commercial laughing about the 
embarrassing and painful ways it failed to push our economy out of 
recession. I find it funny that no one has talked about what would have 
happened without it.
  Here in the Halls of Congress, we're expected to legislate on a vast 
number of issues; but we always try to take our advice from the 
experts. And the experts, the economists, told us we should have done 
more.
  The BBA risks making the Nation's recessions more common and more 
catastrophic for middle class families, senior, veterans, the disabled, 
the poor. Under such an amendment, Congress is stripped of any power to 
adequately respond.
  Secondly, a BBA would risk default and jeopardize the full faith and 
credit of the United States. We've already been down this road. We 
already know how dangerous that turn really is. In August, we teetered 
on the brink of default playing political games and pointing fingers. 
We couldn't pass a respectable debt ceiling increase, and we only 
needed a simple majority to do so.
  A balanced budget amendment would bar the government from borrowing 
funds unless a three-fifths vote in both Houses of Congress permitted a 
raise in the debt limit. Under such a scenario, we wouldn't have been 
able to raise the debt limit in the last debate. A budget crisis in 
which a default becomes a threat is more likely and because of the 
limits placed on the fluidity of the debt ceiling, that default becomes 
more likely to occur.
  After the chaos we just experienced a few short months ago after the 
downgrade of our Nation's credit rating, not because of our debt but 
because of our lack of ability to lead and govern, I would think, Mr. 
Speaker, that we would try to avoid an identical future situation. A 
BBA would exacerbate the same issues we saw in the August debt ceiling 
debacle.
  Third, Mr. Speaker, a BBA would lead to reductions in needed 
investments for the future. Since the 1930s, our Nation has 
consistently made public investments that improve long-term 
productivity and growth in education, infrastructure, research and 
development. These efforts encourage increased private sector 
investment leading to budget surpluses and a thriving economy.
  A balanced budget amendment which requires a balanced budget each and 
every year would limit the government's ability to make public 
investments, thereby hindering future growth.
  For years, conservatives have abused the debt and the deficit as a 
springboard from which to argue for smaller government and cuts to 
programs that serve as social safety nets to the American families. 
Although we must consider the debt and deficit, the larger and more 
significant issue is the nature of the debt and what it created.
  If you invest $50,000 in a business, a house, or an education, you 
can expect

[[Page 17786]]

future returns on your investment. If you invest the same $50,000 in a 
gambling debt, what is the future return? Both expenditures result in a 
$50,000 debt. But only one results in a return that can transform that 
debt into a long-term asset or gain.
  Social investments provide the potential for greater returns in the 
long run in the same fashion as personal investments. Even small 
expenditures on social programs lay a foundation for great wealth in 
the long term. If the Nation chose to invest over a 5-year period $1.5 
trillion in building roads and bridges and airports and railroads, mass 
transit, schools, housing, health care, we would create a debt. But the 
increased ability of companies to interact and shift their goods over 
well-paved and planned roads, the new businesses that would sprout 
around freshly built or newly expanded airports, the high wages of a 
student who is well-educated and able to attend college resulting in 
more tax revenue, the improved productivity of employees at their 
healthiest would eventually result in greater returns for our country.
  The extension of Bush-era tax cuts for corporations and the rich 
brought about some short-term stimulus for consumer spending; but 
similar to the Reagan tax cuts, which resulted in record government 
deficits and debt, the long-term damage outweighs the immediate 
effects. Reagan's tax cuts for the rich came at the expense of 
investing in our Nation's need for long-term, balanced economic growth.
  The Reagan administration neglected and cut back our Nation's 
investment in infrastructure, education, health care, housing, job 
training, transportation, energy conservation, and more.
  The inclination of most conservatives in both parties--I'm not 
picking on Republicans today--in both parties, is to cut the debt by 
cutting programs for the most vulnerable amongst us--our poor, our 
children, our elderly, our disabled, and minorities. This approach, 
however, has proven false too many times. A balanced budget amendment 
would take us back to this archaic and ineffective system permanently.
  Fourth, Mr. Speaker, a balanced budget amendment favors wealthy 
Americans over middle- and low-income Americans by making it harder to 
raise revenue and easier to cut programs. Under current law, 
legislation can pass by a majority of those present and voting by a 
recorded vote.
  The BBA requires that legislation raising taxes must be approved on a 
rollcall vote by a majority of the full membership of both Houses. 
Before I even finish this point, Mr. Speaker, I want to make this 
point: look at the supercommittee. Look at what they're wrestling with. 
We don't even have a balanced budget amendment. Look at who they're 
targeting. Look at the emphasis of their cuts.
  So instead of a balanced budget amendment in the Constitution, we 
already see that Congress is ineffective in light of what we've already 
passed. Imagine if it were a constitutional requirement.
  The point is so simple, Mr. Speaker. The BBA would make it harder to 
cut the deficit by curbing special interest tax breaks of the oil and 
gas industries and making it easier to reduce programs such as 
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, veterans benefits, education, 
environmental programs, and assistance to poor children.
  Wealthy individuals and corporations receive most of their government 
benefits in the form of tax entitlements while low-income and middle-
income Americans receive most of their government benefits through 
programs.
  As evidenced by the cuts that both parties agreed upon recently, it's 
far easier to cut social welfare programs than to cut spending on our 
military or to increase taxes. As long as spending is a political 
issue, cuts to those programs that assist those with the smallest voice 
in Washington will always happen first.
  Raising taxes, the only option to address a budget deficit aside from 
cutting programs, is already a burdensome issue. The additional 
requirements of a BBA further complicate the process of raising taxes. 
This means the richest Americans will likely keep the benefits they 
receive from our government via tax cuts.
  Meanwhile, the poor, they lose their programs that provide them with 
housing, with food, with health care, and the means to survive. This 
will further reinforce the growing gap between the rich, the rest of 
our society, middle class, working poor, and the destitute alike.

                              {time}  2020

  The BBA insists that the total government expenditures in any year, 
including those for Social Security benefits, not exceed total revenues 
collected in that same year, including revenues from Social Security 
payroll taxes. Thus, the benefits of the baby boomers would have to be 
financed in full by the taxes of those working and paying into the 
system then. This undercuts the central reforms of 1983.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the BBA weakens the principle of majority rule 
and makes balancing the budget much more difficult. Most balanced 
budget amendments require that, unless three-fifths of the Members of 
Congress agree to raise the debt ceiling, the budget must be balanced 
at all times. They also require that legislation raising taxes must be 
approved on a roll call vote by a majority of the membership.
  Mr. Speaker, in no way is this an exhaustive list. I know that my 
time is up, but this is my second attempt to bring my conservative 
friends to their senses. The only parties served by a balanced budget 
amendment are corporate interests and the wealthy, whom they seem to be 
serving instead of everyday working Americans.
  My answer is ``no,'' Mr. Speaker, to the balanced budget amendment 
tomorrow. My answer is ``yes'' if my colleagues agree there is no way 
that they can pass the balanced budget amendment unless we, ourselves, 
agree that we must invest, build, and grow this economy and work our 
way out of this problem as Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________