Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

I thank the gentlelady very much.

Last night, the Democrats were here waiting while the Republicans could not get their own conference together. If any of you were watching the national news, it was not because we were not ready to vote and to move forward on a compromise. It was because those who believe they had a landslide victory are still talking about elections instead of talking about the American people.

This is the worst bill that any American could ever imagine in the history of this Nation. I tell you that because this bill will in fact default the American Government in 6 months, and it will not adhere to the Constitution, which says the Declaration is the promise and the Constitution is the fulfillment.

We actually have the authority, Mr. President, under the 14th Amendment

to raise the debt ceiling by way of acknowledging that the public debt should always be recognized. But in this particular legislation, in 6 months if we do not cut by $1.6 trillion and pass a balanced budget amendment, the Nation will default.

And the balanced budget amendment is not by a majority. It is 60 percent of this Congress will stop the American people from receiving their just due. We will not have Social Security. We will not have Medicaid. We will not have Medicare. In actuality, the mandate will cause us to support the Republican Study budget, which is $9 trillion in cuts, 70 percent of discretionary funding. That means all of your Medicare, all of your Medicaid, all of your Social Security.

Madam Speaker, I ask the American people to call in and say, stop the madness and compromise. Do what is right. Mr. President, if not, raise the debt ceiling under the Constitution. You have the authority.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the ``Budget Control Act of 2011,'' which, like the previous debt-ceiling bills introduced by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, attempts to resolve our budget ceiling crisis by demanding sharp cuts to domestic programs that ask average Americans to make life-changing sacrifices while not asking America's wealthiest individuals and most profitable corporations to contribute their fair share.

In my lifetime, I have never seen such a concerted effort to ransom the American economy in order to extort the American public. While I support bipartisan efforts to increase the debt limit and to resolve our differences over budgetary revenue and spending issues, I cannot support a bill that unduly robs average Americans of their economic security and ability to provide for their families while constraining the ability of Congress to deal effectively with America's economic, fiscal, and job creation troubles.

The Budget Control Act of 2011 cuts $22 billion from the Federal Budget for FY2012. Robert McIntyre, of Citizens for Tax Justice testified before the Senate Budget Committee that tax loopholes for corporations, big business owners and business investors cost the Treasury Department $365 billion in FY2011.

We need to change the tone here in Congress. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it best when he stated in a recently before the House Committee on Financial Services. ``We really don't want to just cut, cut, cut,'' Chairman Bernanke further stated ``You need to be a little bit cautious about sharp cuts in the very near term because of the potential impact on the recovery. That doesn't at all preclude--in fact, I believe it's entirely consistent with--a longer-term program that will bring our budget into a sustainable position.''

The Boehner plan does just that it will cut, cut, cut without taking into full consideration the serious cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This bill is essentially a rehashed version of the same bill that President Obama promised to veto and the Senate vowed to reject. It asks for $917 billion in cuts from domestic spending for a $900 billion increase in the debt ceiling, while demanding nothing in revenue from the nation's wealthiest. This is nothing more than a ransom note, irresponsibly raising the debt ceiling for only a few months so that in just a short period of time, the American public will be hit again for $1.6 trillion in cuts from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans benefits. Anyone who believes that this plan will not result in a serious cut to Social Security should consider this . . . Social Security represents 20 percent of all federal spending, making it unrealistic to think such large cuts in mandatory spending will not affect Social Security benefits.

I state here today that the Boehner proposal is ill-conceived and fails to offer a balanced approach to decreasing the deficit. Instead of requiring shared sacrifice, the Boehner plan places the entire burden on the backs of seniors, the middle class and our nation's most vulnerable citizens, while doing nothing to close corporate tax giveaways and increase taxes on those most able to afford them.

The Boehner plan calls for large cuts in discretionary programs of $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years through strict new spending caps. Most experts predict that the first round of cuts would target discretionary programs, including education, infrastructure, job training and law enforcement. The Boehner plan would then require an additional $1.8 trillion in savings to be identified by the end of the year as a condition for raising the debt ceiling again at that time. Given the magnitude of these additional required savings, it would result in deep draconian cuts in federal entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. A repeal of health reform's coverage expansions. And a dramatic reduction in safety net programs for vulnerable Americans, such as food stamps and unemployment and disability insurance. This is unacceptable, and each is avoidable if corporations and the wealthy are required to shoulder a fair share of this burden.

The Speaker's plan requires a vote on an ill-advised constitutional balanced budget amendment in both chambers of Congress by the end of this year. The details surrounding exactly which proposed constitutional balanced budget amendment will be voted on are unclear. However, earlier proposals that have appeared in the House of Representatives, including H.J. Res. 1, would have a devastating impact on discretionary spending and on our modest economic recovery.

Passing an amendment to the Constitution is one of the most serious processes the United States Congress can undertake, requiring a two thirds supermajority of support in both the House and Senate and ratification by three fourths (\3/4\) of the States. The Founders purposely made the amendment process a long and arduous one. Do my Republican colleagues really expect Congress to capriciously pass an amendment altering our nation's founding document on such short notice; an amendment that will fundamentally change our country without reasonable time for debate; without the opportunity for a hearing or questioning of witnesses; without any reports as to what impact it may have?

By tying the fate of whether the United States pays its debt obligations to the historically prolonged Constitutional amendment process, the Republicans who support this bill have demonstrated, at this critical juncture in American history, that they are profoundly irresponsible when it comes to the integrity of our economy and utterly bereft of sensible solutions for fixing it.

The Speaker's plan will result in for $2.7 trillion in deficit reduction and a $2.5 trillion increase in the debt limit in two stages, with the two debt ceiling increases being conditioned upon enactment of an initial set of spending, cuts and a later, second deficit reduction measure.

I do not believe that Congress should yield its authority to what amounts to a Commission. Boehner's plan creates a 12-member joint congressional committee to develop a plan for an additional $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction that Congress would vote on in December. In addition the Speaker's plan authorizes the president ito submit a $900 billion increase in the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling immediately after enactment of this bill, and a $1.6 trillion increase if the $1.8 trillion deficit reduction measure is enacted. Both debt limit increases would take effect automatically unless Congress enacted resolutions of disapproval. The Speaker's plan also requires the House and Senate to vote by the end of the year on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. As I have stated before this will tie the hands of Congress.

Finally, as noted above, the Boehner proposal provides only a short- term extension of the federal debt ceiling. This means that the gridlock that now prevails in our government will continue for the remainder of the 112th Congress. According to the Center on Budget and Policy, recent reports have suggested that rating agencies will downgrade the U.S. credit rating if the Boehner proposal is enacted. This would result not only in higher interest costs to the federal government but also would raise the interest rate paid by individuals and families on car loans, credit cards and mortgages throughout the United States. Taken together, all of these factors would undermine the nation's fragile recovery.

There has been a theme this Congress of focusing on cutting programs that benefit the public good and for the most at need, while ignoring the need to focus on job creation and economic recovery. This bill is wasting a tremendous amount of time when we should be focused on paying our nation's bills and resolving our differences!

In my district, the Texas 18th, more than 190,000 people live below the poverty line. We must not, we cannot, at a time when the Census Bureau places the number of American living in poverty at the highest rate in over 50 years, cut vital social services. Not in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and persistent unemployment, when so many rely on federal benefits to survive, like the Supplemental Nutrition Access Program (SNAP) that fed 3.9 million residents of Texas in April 2011 or the Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) Program that provides nutritious food to more than 990,000 mothers and children in my home state.

In 2009, there were 43.6 million Americans living in poverty nationwide. According to the 2010 Federal poverty threshold, determined by the U.S. Census, a family of four is considered impoverished if they are living on less than $22,314 per year.

Children represent a disproportionate amount of the United States' poor population.

In 2008, there were 15.45 million impoverished children in the nation, 20.7% of America's youth. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that there are currently 5.6 million Texans living in poverty, 2.2 million of them children, and that 17.4% of households in the state struggle with food insecurity.

There is no doubt that we must reduce the national debt, but my Republican colleague's desire for instant gratification through deep spending cuts to benefits, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is reckless and threatens the financial security of millions of Americans.

Instead of closing corporate tax loopholes to reduce the deficit, the Budget Control Act cuts discretionary spending, and requires Congress to draft proposals to cut at least $1.8 trillion from Medicare and Social Security. This is an outrage, and an insult to the American dream.

Forcing Congress to draft plans to cut 1.8 trillion from Medicare and Social Security forces Members to disregard the best interests of their constituents. Medicare guarantees a healthy and secure retirement for Americans who have paid into it for their entire working lives. Protecting Medicare represents the basic values of fairness and respect for our seniors, including the 2.9 million Texans who received Medicare in 2010.

Any cuts to Medicaid would be just as damaging. Harris County has one of the highest Medicaid enrollment records in Texas. Limits and cuts to Medicaid funds would significantly hurt the citizens of Texas's 18th District. Harris County averages between 500,000 and 600,000 Medicaid recipients monthly, thousands of people who may not have access to healthcare should Congress sacrifice Medicaid to cut spending.

Yes, we must take steps to balance the budget and reduce the national debt, but not at the expense of vital social programs. It is unconscionable that in our nation of vast resources, my Republican colleagues would pass a budget that cuts funding for essential social programs. Poverty impacts far too many Americans and social safety nets provide these individuals with vital assistance.

Perhaps my friends on the other side of the aisle are content to conclude that life simply is not fair, equality is not accessible to everyone, and the less advantaged among us are condemned to remain as they are, but I do not accept that. That kind of complacency is not fitting for America.

As we continue to discuss the necessity of increasing our debt ceiling, I have heard the concerns of many of my constituents and the American people regarding the size of our national debt and the care with which taxpayer money is spent. I, too, am concerned about these issues; for to burden future generations of Americans with tremendous amounts of debt should not be a way to avoid our fiscal responsibilities to the American people. However, the task of resolving our debt ceiling crisis must take precedence over other concerns, including political ideology. The game is up, and the American people understand that increasing the debt ceiling has nothing to do with any new spending and everything to do with paying off the obligations that we have already agreed to and promised to pay.

Prior to the existence of the debt ceiling, Congress had to approve borrowing each time the federal government wished to borrow money in order to carry out its functions. With the onset of World War I, more flexibility was needed to expand the government's capability to borrow money expeditiously in order to meet the rapidly changing requirements of funding a major war in the modern era.

To address this need, the first debt ceiling was established in 1917, allowing the federal government to borrow money to meet its obligations without prior Congressional approval, so long as in the aggregate, the amount borrowed did not eclipse a specified limit.

Since the debt limit was first put in place, Congress has increased it over 100 times; in fact, it was raised 10 times within the past decade. Congress last came together and raised the debt ceiling in February 2010. Today, the debt ceiling currently stands at $14.3 trillion dollars. In reality, that limit has already been eclipsed, but due to accounting procedures by Treasury Secretary Geithner, the debt limit can be artificially avoided until August 2nd.

Congress must act now in order to avert a crisis. Never in the history of America has the United States defaulted on its debt obligations.

We must be clear on what this issue means for our country. America has earned a reputation as the world's most trusted borrower. United States Treasury bonds have traditionally been one of the safest investments another country or investor could make. For investors around the world, purchasing a U.S. Treasury bond meant that they held something virtually as safe as cash, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government.

In turn, with the proceeds from the bonds, the federal government of the world's largest economy is able to finance its operations. If the United States defaults on its debt obligations, the financial crisis that began in 2008 would pale in comparison, according to economic experts. The ensuing economic catastrophe would not only place the U.S. economy in a tailspin, but the world economy as well.

The fact that Congress, a body that typically has its fair share of political battles, has never played political chicken when it came to raising the debt ceiling should give us all pause, and is a testament to the seriousness with which we must approach this issue. However, this lime around, my Republican colleagues have created an impasse based upon an ideological commitment to spending cuts. While I understand and share the concern of my Republican colleagues with respect to deficit spending, and will continue to work with them in order to find reductions, now is not the time to put ideology over pragmatism. The reality is that, on August 3rd, the United States will begin to default on its debt obligations if the debt ceiling is not raised.

This unnecessarily places the American public and the economy between a rock and a hard place. Either Congress sides completely with the radical agenda of the Tea Party, which in the irresponsibly pulls the chair out from under the average American while polishing the throne of the wealthiest.

This detour into a spending debate is as unnecessary as it is perilous, as increasing the debt ceiling does not obligate the undertaking of any new spending by the federal government. Rather, raising the debt limit simply allows the government to pay existing legal obligations promised to debt holders that were already agreed to by Presidents and Congresses, both past and present.

Moreover, the impending crisis would have already occurred were it not for the extraordinary measures taken by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, including the suspension of the investment in securities to finance the Civil Service retirement and Disability Fund, as well as the redemption of a portion of those securities already held by that fund.

If the United States defaults on its obligations on August 3rd, the stock market will react violently to the news that for the first time in history, America is unable to keep its promises to pay. Not once in American history has the country's full faith and credit been called into question.

Once America defaults, investors who purchase U.S. bonds and finance our government will be less likely to lend to America in the future. Just as a person who defaults on a loan will find it harder to convince banks to lend them money in the future, a country that defaults on its debt obligations will find it harder to convince investors to lend money to a government that did not pay.

Showing the world that the United States does not pay its debts makes the purchasing of that debt less desirable because it requires the assumption of more risk on the part of the investors. The proponents of this bill are putting the country at serious risk of losing its status as the world's economic superpower. Our allies will lose faith in our ability to manage global economic affairs. Our status in the world will be diminished, which will undermine our leverage on the world stage that allows us to command the respect and compliance of other nations when it comes to decision-making. This bill will reduce America's ability to compete with a surging China.

Furthermore, any investors that do continue to purchase U.S. Treasury bonds will demand much higher interest rates in order to cover the increased risk. Once a default occurs, investors figure that the chance of the United States defaulting again is much greater, and will require the government to pay higher rates of interest in order to make the loan worth the risk for investors to take on.

Imagine the impact on our stock market if we do not pay our debts. As we have seen throughout the recent financial crisis, a bad stock market hurts not only big businesses and large investors on Wall Street, but small businesses and small investors as well. Families with investments tied to the stock market, such as 401(k)s, pension plans, and savings, will once again see the value of their investments drop. The American people are tired of the uncertainty of the value of their retirement accounts. We must not allow another wild fluctuation to occur due to default and add to the uncertainty still lingering in the minds of citizens.

The Speaker's plan is a short term fix for a long term issue. It is a patch rather than a proper repair. Boehner's plan requires that Congress address debt ceiling once again in a short span of time, which will once again lead to market uncertainty in a time when we are trying to rebuild our nation. This plan is not good for Wall Street and it is not good for the American people. The Speaker's bill is a short-term debt limit increase that will only ensure that Congress will go through this exact same standoff again in the next few months. Short-term proposals risk further uncertainty and the potentially damaging downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. The markets have made it clear that a short-term extension is not sufficient and could result in very serious consequences. While Democrats support deficit

reduction, we support doing it in a balanced way that provides certainty to the economy.

As if another stock market crisis were not enough, the housing market would take another hit if America defaulted. Higher mortgage rates in a housing market already weakened by default and foreclosures would cause a further depression of home values, destroying whatever equity families might have left in their homes after the housing crisis. Moreover, the long-term effects would reduce spending and investment in the housing market.

Increasing the debt ceiling is the responsible thing to do. Congress has already debated and approved the debt that an increased ceiling makes room for. However, my Republican colleagues have chosen to use this as an opportunity to hold the American people hostage to their extreme agenda.

Even prominent Republicans like Senator John McCain and Christine Todd Whitman have criticized the radical elements of their party who insist upon holding up the entire political process in order to flaunt their extreme, irrational, and unrealistic ideology. Senator McCain has called the Tea Party's stance and the way they have conducted themselves during this manufactured crisis ``bizarre,'' and I am inclined to agree. Their agenda for this country is even too radical for Speaker Boehner, with the Tea Party vowing to reject their leader's own bill.

They live in a world that is not the world that the American people live in. In their world, they believe that taxes are always too high, even on people making over a billion a year in a struggling economy; that any increase in revenue is fundamentally wrong, even if it comes from large corporations who use tax loopholes at the expense of our job-creating small businesses; that investing anything in our economic future above tax revenues is impermissible, even in the midst of an economic downturn; and that tax cuts for the wealthy are always the nation's top priority, even at the expense of people that depend on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans benefits to survive.

These beliefs place them on the fringe of American society, and yet due to the nature of our political process, they have held up the entire government and placed our economy on the precipice of a turbulent second recession.

If Congress cannot find a resolution then Congress will open the possibility that the President may invoke the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section four, which states ``the validity of the public debt of the United States . . . shall not be questioned.'' The argument can be made that if Congress will not resolve our nation's pending default then the President, to protect the interest of our nation, must act. The President would then have to consider his powers under the Fourteenth Amendment which may grant him the authority to raise the debt ceiling, on his own, through executive order if Congress fails to raise the debt limit by the August 2, 2011 deadline. As a body we should not place the President or our country in this position.

For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to consider the constituents in their home districts who would be hurt by this bill. I urge my colleagues to return to the world in which the vast majority of Americans live; a world in which our shared destiny is determined by reasonable minds and good faith efforts to compromise. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that defaulting could ``throw the financial system into chaos,'' and ``destroy the trust and confidence that global investors have in Treasury securities as being the safest liquid assets in the world.''

Instead of injecting ideological spending cuts and Constitutional amendments into the traditionally non-political business of raising the debt ceiling, we must work quickly to pass a bill that makes good on our debt obligations and restores confidence in American credit.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are going to talk about a very important development here in the House of Representatives--in fact, in the entire Congress. Because of the vote this summer on the Budget Control Act, we are going to have in both the House and the Senate for the first time in about 15 years a vote on a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. The last time we did this was on March 2, 1995--actually, the House had already passed it with 300 bipartisan votes, and it was brought to the Senate floor on that day. The U.S. Senate failed by one vote to send a balanced budget amendment to the States for ratification. The amendment had passed the House by the required two-thirds majority previously, and the Senate vote was the last legislative hurdle before ratification by the States.

As we know, balanced budget amendments--in fact, any constitutional amendment is voted on by the House and the Senate, requiring a two- thirds vote in each body, and then it does not go to the President of the United States, as legislation does. Instead, it goes directly to our States, and then three-quarters of the State legislatures would be required to ratify it.

If that amendment had passed, then we would not be dealing with the fiscal crisis we now face. If that amendment had passed, then balancing the budget would have been the norm rather than the exception over the past 15 years, and we would have nothing like the annual deficits and skyrocketing debt that we must address today.

The good news is that, like 1995, this Congress is again standing at a crossroads at this very moment. The decisions we make today will steer the direction of the country for the next 15 years. We have an opportunity now to take action to ensure that 15 years from today our children will face a much brighter fiscal picture. We must not allow ourselves to miss this opportunity.

Experience has proven time and again that Congress cannot, for any significant length of time, rein in excessive spending. The annual deficits and the resulting debt continue to grow due to political pressures and a dependency on government programs. In order for Congress to be able to consistently make the very tough decisions necessary to sustain fiscal responsibility over the long term, Congress must have an external pressure to force it to do so. The most realistic change we have today to enact this type of institutional reform is through a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution.

Many Members of Congress have introduced balanced budget amendments in this Congress. I introduced two versions on the first day of the 112th Congress.

H.J. Res. 2 is the exact text that passed the House in 1995 and failed in the Senate by one vote. This amendment requires total annual outlays not to exceed total annual receipts. It also requires a three- fifths majority to raise the debt limit. This legislation also has limited exceptions for times of war.

H.J. Res. 1, which I also introduced, goes much further. In addition to the provisions of H.J. Res. 2, it requires a two-thirds majority to raise taxes and imposes an annual spending cap that prohibits spending from exceeding 18 percent of GDP.

In the U.S. Senate, 47 Republican Senators--all the Republican Senators--have cosponsored a balanced budget amendment, which is a strong sign that the Senate is ready to engage in debate on this subject as well.

Our extraordinary fiscal crisis demands an extraordinary solution, so we simply cannot afford to succumb to political posturing on this issue at a point in time so crucial to our Nation's future. We must rise above that and move forward with a strategy that includes legislation that will get to 290 votes on the House floor.

So as we consider a balanced budget amendment, I encourage the Members of the body to devote our efforts to passing the strongest balanced budget amendment that can garner two-thirds of the House of Representatives. We're at a crossroads in the country. We can make the tough choices and control spending, paving the way for our return to surpluses and ultimately paying down the national debt, or we can allow big spenders to lead us further down the road of chronic deficits and leave our children and grandchildren saddled with debt that is not their own.

I have been joined by a number of outstanding Members of the House, and I am going to call upon them to offer some comments about the importance of a balanced budget amendment to them and to their constituents as well.

Since he got here first, I'm going to yield first to one of our new Members, from the State of Indiana, a great fiscal conservative, someone who believes strongly in limiting our government and balancing our budget, Congressman Todd Rokita.

I thank the gentleman from Indiana for his remarks.

We are joined now by a very important member of our conference, a leader, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee and a strong supporter of fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget amendment, the gentleman from Texas, Congressman Pete Sessions.

I yield to the gentleman.

Thank you for your good work. Thank you for your efforts on behalf of this cause.

I want to make reference to the fact that this Special Order that we're all participating in is sponsored by the House Constitution Caucus, which is chaired by Congressman Scott Garrett of New Jersey. We'll hear from him in a few minutes.

But now I want to yield to another new Member of Congress who has been very, very instrumental in working on a balanced budget amendment and has made a number of good, constructive observations and recommendations about this issue, and that's Congressman Mo Brooks from Alabama.

I thank the gentleman for his very passionate support of the cause of fiscal responsibility.

As I mentioned earlier, this Special Order is being sponsored by the Congressional Constitution Caucus. And it's now my pleasure to yield to another great champion of limited government and lower taxes and less government regulation and balancing the budget, Congressman Scott Garrett of New Jersey.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, and I like the sound of that 28th Amendment to the Constitution.

Let me just say that, as I mentioned at the outset, because of the vote by the Congress--the House and the Senate--signed into law by the President, we will have a vote in both the House and Senate on a balanced budget amendment before the end of this year, before December 31. And if either body passes a specific balanced budget amendment, the other body has to vote on the same one so that we have the greatest possibility that if we can reach that kind of consensus, we can actually send a balanced budget amendment for the first time to the States for ratification. It would require 38 States to ratify it. But as the gentleman from New Jersey just noted, 49 out of 50 States have a requirement in their constitution that they must balance their budgets.

I believe that with the public supporting this by numbers northward of 80 percent--and it's very bipartisan support. I saw a recent poll that showed that 74 percent of Democrats support this, as do a great many Democrats here in the House. In fact, to pass a constitutional amendment with 290 votes, it has to be bipartisan. So we are working across the aisle to make sure that we build the kind of support that we need to pass the strongest possible amendment to our Constitution requiring that the government lives within its means.

I yield to another great supporter of that concept, another new Member who came here to reform the way things are done here in Washington, DC, and who has joined us in this effort, the gentleman from Illinois, Congressman Randy Hultgren.

I thank the gentleman. I very much appreciate his comments and would note the fact that we have, speaking here tonight, Members from many corners of the country: Indiana, Alabama, Texas, Illinois, Mississippi, Wisconsin, New Jersey, and Virginia.

In fact, Members of Congress from about 46 or 47 States have indicated their support for at least one version of the constitutional amendment. If we can bring all of them together, and they can bring just a few more Members together, we can get to that 290 votes, because this is not a regional issue, this is not a partisan issue.

This is an issue that transcends the country. It's reflected in the fact that this is an issue we can communicate directly with our constituents about, and they understand exactly what we're talking about because they live with the concept that they can't spend more than they take in year after year after year. The businesses that they work for, they can't spend more than they take in year after year after year. Local governments, State governments are all bound by this principle that you cannot live beyond your means. That principle should be enshrined in the United States Constitution.

I yield to another Member who joins us in this effort, another new Member--and it's the new Members who have helped to bring this issue back to the fore, who really want to see a vote on this for the first time in 15 years--Congressman Reid Ribble from Wisconsin.

Welcome.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

As I indicated earlier, this is an issue that has to have a bipartisan solution. It simply is not possible to pass constitutional amendments that require two-thirds of the House, or 290 Members, and two-thirds of the Senate, 67 Members, without Members reaching across the aisle and working together to come up with language that is agreeable and can be supported on both sides of the aisle.

And quite frankly, the nature of the problem that we are confronted with is one that past Congresses controlled by both parties, Presidents of both parties have contributed to, and the solution is going to have to require also that same kind of bipartisan working it out on a year- to-year basis balancing the budget.

It won't be easy. There will be tremendous differences of opinion about whether we should do this by cutting spending or raising revenues, or doing other things that can grow our economy and cause more revenues to come in. But it cannot get to the first stage of having future Congresses live by this without it being bipartisan. That's why I'm so pleased that so many members of the Democratic Party have signed on to support this effort. They've been led by an outstanding Member who has championed a balanced budget amendment for a long time, and that's Congressman Peter DeFazio from Oregon.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

In the next few weeks, as we anticipate a vote coming up quite soon, we have a lot of work to do to make sure that we are giving every Member of this body an opportunity to speak out for fiscal responsibility and not just speak but put their vote on the line and say, yes, we think we should send to the States an amendment to the Constitution to require a balanced budget.

We are also joined by another new Member who has been a very strong advocate for cutting government spending and having government operate more efficiently and believes strongly in requiring that our government do what everyone else in our society has to do, and that is live within its means, balance its budget, and that's Congressman Marlin Stutzman from Indiana.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

I have to say that we've seen support from all across the country, from east coast States like New Jersey and Virginia all the way to the west coast to Oregon. We've heard from Members of both parties, we've heard from Members from States along the Canadian border, and Members from States on the gulf coast.

This amendment has broad, broad support in the Congress, but it has a high hill to climb in needing 290 Members to vote for it. We're continuing to work to find that support. It's not a new idea. It's been around for almost as long as our Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson has been cited, and I'll read that again here. He said, ``I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government. I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing.'' He said that in 1798. That's the only thing he said.

Later in his life he said, ``There does not exist an engine so corruptive of the government and so demoralizing of the Nation as a public debt. It will bring on us more ruin at home than all the enemies from abroad against whom this Army and Navy are to protect us.'' Thomas Jefferson said that in 1821.

And about our future generations, which several Members have commented on here tonight, Thomas Jefferson said in 1789, the year that our Constitution went into effect, ``Then I say, the Earth belongs to each of these generations during its course fully, and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and encumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the Earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation.''

Thomas Jefferson wrote that to James Madison in 1789, and how prescient was that as our new Nation was starting work under a new Constitution that he would observe that we are where we are today where we are passing on to future generations debt that is unsustainable.

How ironic it is that we borrow money today to pay for programs today and put that burden on the backs of our children and grandchildren and those not yet even born with the likelihood that if we do not change from this course, we will find that those very children and grandchildren will not have these programs when they need to depend upon it. They will only have the debt.

This is what Thomas Jefferson meant when he said the Earth would belong to the dead and not to the living.

Finally, let me give you one more quote:

``To preserve the independence of the people, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude.''

Mr. Speaker, that's an excellent note on which to close.

I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana and everyone else who has participated and the other gentleman from Indiana.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

What we have before us today should not be called the balanced budget amendment. What it should be called is the unbalanced budget amendment because that is what this bill is--unbalanced. It upends prudent fiscal policies, makes a mockery of congressional authority, and does nothing to address the economic struggles of millions of Americans.

This proposed amendment no more balances the budget than passing legislation to declare the tooth fairy as real. Saying it out loud doesn't make it true. What this proposal says, instead, is that Congress needs to enact legislation that balances the budget. It doesn't tell us how to do it, just what we must do.

Well, if we could do that, Mr. Speaker, we wouldn't need a constitutional amendment telling us to do it, would we? If Congress could enact legislation that balanced the budget, it could do that without a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Merely imposing a mandate within the Constitution does not mean that Congress will be able to fulfill it.

With this kind of circular reasoning, we could go back and forth until the next election and never have to spend one more minute on creating jobs to improve the economy. But that is exactly what my colleagues on the other side want.

They've been in the majority for nearly a year now in the House of Representatives and have failed to put forth any kind of plan to create jobs and improve the well-being of millions of Americans, unless you count reaffirming ``In God We Trust'' as the national motto, weakening the Environmental Protection Agency, or watering down gun safety laws.

I was here in 1995 when this body passed a balanced budget amendment. And let us not forget that under President Clinton and, yes, Speaker Newt Gingrich, we did manage to balance the Federal budget and leave a hefty surplus for President Bush. But then President Bush and the Republican Party squandered that surplus on two wars. And people should never forget that. They squandered it on tax cuts for the richest Americans, and they squandered it on unpaid-for prescription drug benefits, leaving a big old doughnut hole that we've been talking about ever since.

Now the Republicans in this body are so extremist that they refuse to consider any tax increases of any kind on even the best off of us in America. Instead, they're leaving it up to the struggling middle class and poor people to bear the burdens of the Republican Party's free- spending ways over the last decade. And I wish I had the time to really lay all of that out.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party's intransigence makes this amendment's voting requirements particularly unbalanced. This proposal requires a two-thirds vote, 290 votes here in the House, to pass an increase in the debt ceiling. Do you know what the definition of insanity is, as said by my friend? Repeating the same thing over and over again. And real crazy insanity is just doing it over and over and over and over again and expecting the same result. Or as Ronald Reagan put it, ``There you go again.''

The Republican majority wants to enshrine in the Constitution a permanent hostage crisis for our economy. This supermajority requirement for basic economic management will ensure that we will, on a regular basis, bring our economy to the brink of collapse. Just look at the Republican's performance over the debt ceiling vote. I don't have any confidence that they'll act rationally just because there's a constitutional amendment telling them to do so. That is why this proposal is unbalanced.

By mandating so many onerous, supermajority votes, this amendment guarantees permanent gridlock in the budgeting process. And without the inclusion of a general emergency waiver, this amendment imperils our national security. Let me repeat that. Without the inclusion of a general emergency waiver, this amendment imperils our national security by creating a scenario in which Congress cannot agree whether or not to vote on funding for national emergencies such as a military conflict.

Mr. Speaker, this unbalanced proposal does not even include a clear enforcement mechanism. I asked about that at the Rules Committee, and I got an answer that I still don't understand.

Making the balanced budget a constitutional requirement means that budget disputes would be solved by America's court system. This body has already failed to pass a balanced budget when the power of the purse is already our constitutional obligation. How can we be expected to pass one when each and every provision is also subject to years of litigation?

The Republican majority wants to hand off our constitutional obligations to the Federal courts that will have the power to raise revenue. No less an authority than Judge Robert Bork made a statement regarding that.

He opposed a balanced budget constitutional amendment, declaring ``the result would likely be hundreds, if not thousands, of lawsuits around the country, many of them on inconsistent theories and providing inconsistent results.''

Celebrated late-Professor Archibald Cox of Harvard Law School predicted ``there is a substantial chance, even a strong probability, that Federal courts all over the country would be drawn into its interpretation and enforcement.''

Since my friend used President Reagan, the former Solicitor General to President Reagan, Professor Charles Fried, has testified ``the amendment would surely precipitate us into subtle and intricate legal questions, and the litigation that would ensue would be gruesome, intrusive, and not at all edifying.''

The former Attorney General to President George H. W. Bush, William Barr, opined that judicial power could be invoked ``to address serious and clear-cut violations.''

The Republican majority wants to hand off our constitutional obligations to these courts that will then have the power to raise revenue, impose taxes, cut spending, and reform major government programs.

I guess, if that's the case, we can all just go home now, Mr. Speaker.

This body has previously considered balanced budget amendments on numerous occasions, initiated by both Democrats and Republicans. The majority party has always ensured sufficient floor time for debate and to allow the minority to offer alternatives; but here we are in a situation where the proposal before us was never marked up in committee, never had a hearing, and, in fact, was drafted late this past Thursday night by some mysterious tweaking of H.J. Res. 1 that became H.J. Res. 2. This version was changed in secret and was filed with last-minute surprises that fundamentally changed the nature of the legislation and will come under a procedure that doesn't even allow a motion to recommit.

This is no way to amend the Constitution.

By all means, Mr. Speaker, if we want to balance the budget, let's not do it on the backs of the hardest hit in America. I don't need a constitutional amendment to tell me that balancing the budget without raising taxes on those of us who are best off in this country is unbalanced.

Where Americans need the Federal Government to support the economy, Republicans are trying to strangle it. Where Americans need us to put politics aside, Republicans are bringing forward legislation written in secret. Where Americans need this Congress to focus on economic issues, Republicans are insisting that we vote on God and gays and guns. We don't need to be voting on God and gays and guns. What we need are some guts to tell the American people that, yes, we can do this and that we can't wait any longer for those who are waiting for us to create jobs.

Now the Republican majority wants to pass a constitutional amendment to tell us that we have to balance the budget every year in a way that no individual, State or local government or business does: no borrowing, no trust funds, no way to plan for long-term projects like highway construction, national defense, and public schools.

This amendment guarantees budgetary gridlock forever and moves budget decisions to the Federal courts, not to Congress. This proposed amendment locks into the Constitution the most far right of the Republican Party's policies, forcing future generations to reap the pain imposed by the callous disregard for the least among us--the ones who need the most help.

Mr. Speaker, as of yesterday, there were 273 national organizations that oppose H.J. Res. 2, the balanced budget amendment. It's too lengthy to place into the Record or to put forward, but some of them are among the most celebrated organizations in our country.

I also would recommend to the membership an article written by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, a nonpartisan group that discusses how unnecessary this particular provision is, and it ends with the following paragraph:

The threat a balanced budget amendment would pose to our constitutional order is unavoidable. Congress, of course, remains free to enact a balanced budget if it believes this is sound economic policy. It also remains fully equipped to institute effective controls to ensure restraint and balance in the budgeting process. Therefore, there is no sufficient reason to incur the dramatic risks that the balanced budget amendment would entail for our Constitution and our Nation.

This is not a balanced budget amendment, Mr. Speaker--but it is an unbalanced one.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I wish to compliment the chairman of the Rules Committee.

I am delighted to withdraw the compliment.

What I wanted you to be able to do, since you had become so enlightened about the balanced budget amendment, was to be equally enlightened with reference to the rules and allow us a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 639, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act, which will help create jobs in the United States by making American-manufactured products more attractive to Chinese consumers.

At this time, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from the State of Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, my friend on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), I'm sure has views that are similar to mine. I yield to him 3\1/2\ minutes at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Levin.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to tell me how much time remains on each side?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

I would have my friend to know that we also are talking about the previous question, for which at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Critz).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from Florida that I am going to be the last speaker, and if he is ready to close, I will go forward doing same.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, this unbalanced amendment does not belong in our Constitution. It enshrines far-right ideology and makes a mockery of congressional authority to set forth the Nation's fiscal policy. This hardly belongs in the same company as freedom of speech, the abolition of slavery, and a woman's right to vote. This proposal does not balance the budget; it only demands that Congress do so, and yet it does not provide a mechanism to enforce that rule.

So in a situation of partisan gridlock, the Federal budget might very well end up in the courts. This is no way to govern. If this Congress could balance the budget, we wouldn't need a constitutional amendment to tell us to do so. But the fact remains that the Republican majority has steadfastly failed to set forth legislation that will create jobs and grow this economy.

Given their inflexibility, a balanced budget constitutional amendment hardly seems like the magic wand Republicans claim it will be. This Congress needs to be serious about the real causes of economic hardship in this country. Focusing on God, gays, and guns and not having the guts to tell people we're not doing anything to create jobs, that isn't going to keep people in their homes, and it isn't going to help Americans obtain quality health care and education.

These are the critical issues facing our Nation. Wasting our time-- and that's exactly what this is, it's going nowhere fast--wasting our time with political gimmicks like an unbalanced constitutional amendment is just that, wasting our time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment to the rule in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can debate and pass real jobs legislation today, not little old stuff that is appealing to the right wing of the people who are pushing nothing more than symbolism and talking about it being in our United States Constitution. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 466 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule, House Resolution 466. The rule provides for consideration of what may be the very single most significant piece of legislation that I've had the opportunity to vote on since coming to this body over 10 months ago.

This rule is what allows the House of Representatives to move forward and vote on H.J. Res. 2, a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution.

My resolution that we're considering here today suspends the rules and allows the House to vote on H.J. Res. 2. I'm sure that some of my colleagues may be concerned we're moving to consider the balanced budget amendment under suspension of the rules for fear it would somehow limit debate.

I agree with them. Amending the United States Constitution is not to be taken lightly. This is why the rule provides for 5 hours of debate on this vital issue, because, you see, Mr. Speaker, what we're doing here today is something that should be discussed, something that must be discussed.

We're fundamentally challenging the way Washington works. And you know what? It's about time. It's about time we had real conversation about how our Nation spends its money. It's about time that we made the Federal Government budget the way I did when I was a sheriff of a county in Florida.

It's about time that we balance the Federal checkbook the way American families do every day. It's about time. That's what I think and, more importantly, that's what the majority of the American people think.

The mere fact that we're here today is a failure of leadership. For decades, Washington politicians have kicked the can down the road, choosing deficit spending over fiscal responsibility, choosing frivolous pork projects, wasteful programs, and easy answers over making tough decisions and cutting back. Republicans did it when they were in power, and Democrats did it when they were in power too. Nobody is blameless in getting us to where we are today.

But the days of finger-pointing are over. We don't have the luxury of time to look back and play the blame game. We need to move forward and find a solution to get us out of the hole that we're already in. A balanced budget amendment is a vital part of doing just that.

Yesterday, the United States surpassed $15 trillion in debt. Let me say that again: we're now $15 trillion in debt. While recognizing this sad landmark, I can't help but think about the fact that this didn't have to be the way it is.

In 1997, the House of Representatives passed a balanced budget amendment. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to pass this amendment by one vote. One vote, Mr. Speaker, one vote that would separate us from a road towards fiscal responsibility to where we are today. So here we go again, 14 years later, having the same debate.

I can't stand here today without thinking about my three sons. With a debt of $15 trillion, each of my boys owes over $48,000 in national debt. It means the children and grandchildren of each and every person in this room owes $48,000 to the Federal Government, $48,000 that they didn't spend, that they didn't ask for, and that they now are saddled with by a government of excesses.

Only one Senator stood between where we are now and $15 trillion in debt and where we could have been. So today I stand up in support of this rule and support H.J. Res. 2. I stand up for my kids, my future grandkids, and for all Americans who are saddled with that $48,000 in debt from the day that they're born.

I stand up for giving Congress a second chance, a chance to get it right this time. Unfortunately, I understand the Democratic leadership is whipping against this.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know how else to say this. This simply baffles me. Thanks to the whipping efforts of the Democratic leadership, there are Members in the House who voted for the balanced budget amendment in 1997 who now say they're going to oppose it. In fact, two members of the Democrats' three-person leadership team voted for the 1997 amendment.

I've only been here in D.C., like I said, for a little over 10 months, but of all of the inexplicable things I've seen since coming to Congress, this just stumps me more than just about anything else I've seen here. What could these Members have been seeing between 1997 and today that makes them say, Yeah, you know what? Spending is right on target. Let's just stick with the status quo. It's dumbfounding.

It's often said the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and over again and expect a different outcome. I don't understand how anybody can argue that we can continue to spend the way we do and expect to free ourselves from this monstrous, burdensome debt. We need to break the cycle. We've got to hold Congress' feet to the fire now and into the future. A balanced budget amendment

is the change away from the status quo and back to sanity.

I don't think I can say it better than Congressman DeFazio said in his letter to his Democratic colleagues when he wrote that Democrats who walk away from sincere bipartisan effort will have let the American electorate down. If any of us walk away from this effort, we will have let all Americans down.

We've been working without a budget, this greatest Nation, for over 900 days now. Continuing resolutions and debt ceiling increases are not the answer. Supercommittees and sequestration is not the answer. Enough's enough.

Today we have a clear choice: whether you want to change the status quo or you don't; either you believe that the government must operate responsibly on a balanced budget or you don't; either you want to rescue our Nation, ourselves, our children, and our children's children from crippling debt or you don't.

I would like to close with the words of Ronald Reagan, who once said this: ``The congressional budget process is neither reliable nor credible. In short, it needs to be fixed. We desperately need the power of a constitutional amendment to help us balance our budget.''

Now, that is presidential leadership.

With that, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, ``yes'' on the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California, the chairman of the august Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), a Rules Committee member.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that everybody that may be watching this at home understands we are talking about a balanced budget amendment.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Florida for a lively debate. The issue, though, that has sort of gotten muddled is about a balanced budget amendment, not about anything else that you've heard about on the floor. It is about a balanced budget amendment.

But just to remind everybody, when we talk about jobs, we've passed over 21 jobs bills that are currently sitting idle in the Senate. So I don't know what else you can do, except it gets kind of frustrating that we send great pieces of legislation over to the Senate and nothing happens.

We've heard a lot of debate here about a balanced budget amendment, pros and cons. You're going to hear 5 hours of debate in the very near future about the pros and cons of a balanced budget amendment.

This Congress has done things that are amazing. We used emergency funding to fund the census. Now, I know the census probably snuck up on everybody around here, but I don't understand why you had to use emergency funding to do that.

You know, we talk about the Clinton years. We talk about budget surpluses and how quickly they disappeared. But remember one thing: Part of the Clinton surpluses also hollowed out our force, which required us to put our servicemen and -women at risk for way too long. Some of them weren't allowed to retire through stop-loss, and others had to serve 15 months in combat positions because we had hollowed out our force.

Patrick Henry once said the Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government. Today we start building upon those restraints. A balanced budget amendment is more of an instrument to check bloated government, a government that wants to be everything to everyone.

Today we're borrowing 40 cents on every dollar we spend. We're writing checks that we can't cash, hoping future generations will be able to figure out how to get out of this mess on their own. This spending is just unsustainable.

I wasn't happy with the Budget Control Act, but I voted for it simply so we could vote today on a rule to allow us to vote on a balanced budget later this week so we can fundamentally change where we're going.

After 10 months in Congress, I'm convinced that there are not enough people in Washington with the determination, the dedication, nor the fortitude to make the tough decisions for the good of this country. The Constitution has saved us in the past, and it can save us in the future. A balanced budget amendment would give Americans a reason to believe that more efficiently and effectively than any other proposal I've heard of.

One of the things I hear consistently back home is that you all have made decisions in Congress that have put us so far into debt. Our unborn children are facing a debt of $48,000 for every child who's born this year. How can we stand up and look at people and say this Congress can fix it on its own? How can we look people in the eye and say, You know what. Just give us another chance; we've done so well over the last 30 years.

I don't believe that the American people believe that we can do that, and I think that's why they're asking for fundamental changes. I think it's why they're asking us to step forward and do the right thing, Mr. Speaker, not kick the can down the road anymore.

I have the utmost respect for our chairman and for my good friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), but I adamantly disagree. I think that we've had a change in government because there's a necessary need for a change in government. I think that you can't continue to do the status quo, because if we do, we're just going to wind up $15 trillion in debt today, $20 trillion in debt 2 years from now. When does it end, Mr. Speaker?

So I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this strongly bipartisan legislation.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 466 offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

639) to amend title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify

that countervailing duties may be imposed to address

subsidies relating to a fundamentally undervalued currency of

any foreign country. The first reading of the bill shall be

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of

the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate the bill

shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.

All points of order against provisions in the bill are

waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the

House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill

and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports

that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the

next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the

third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,

resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of the bill specified in section 3 of this

resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to both of my friends from Florida who serve on the Rules Committee.

This is a very, very important debate. It's a debate that we haven't had since January of 1995, which is the last time that the House of Representatives had a vote on the issue of a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Back in 1995, when we had just won our majority, Mr. Speaker, I was one of the enthusiastic supporters, one of the two-thirds of the House of Representatives who voted in favor of the constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. I felt very strongly at the time that as we looked at the fiscal challenges that we as a Nation faced that the only thing that we could do to achieve a balanced budget would be to have an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would call for that.

Mr. Speaker, I have changed my mind. I have changed my mind, and I will be voting against the constitutional amendment calling for a balanced budget.

Now, this is not something that I have done lightly. My friend from Spring Hill was absolutely right when he said that looking at the tough challenge of amending the Constitution is something that needs to be addressed; but I will say that I agree with a number of the arguments that were put forward by my friend from Fort Lauderdale and with a lot of the arguments put forward by my friend from Spring Hill. At the end of the day, I concluded that we should not amend the U.S. Constitution in calling for a balanced budget.

I said I've changed my mind, and I am reminded of a statement that was made by our former colleague, the mentor of our friend Jeb Hensarling, who is working tirelessly to ensure that we get our fiscal house in order with the work of the Joint Select Committee. His mentor was Phil Gramm--a Democrat, then a Republican--who served in the House and the Senate. Phil Gramm once said that ours is one job where you can never admit to having learned anything.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that I've learned something, and I'd like to take just a few minutes to explain why it is that I've come to the conclusion that I have.

I said at the outset that I believed when I cast that vote in January of 1995 in favor of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that it was the only way that we would be able to achieve a balanced budget. I was wrong. Two short years later, we balanced the Federal budget. We balanced the Federal budget, and that went on for several years. It went on until 2001.

My friend was talking about the fact that we had two wars. We've got to remember that it took literally billions and billions of dollars to deal with national security issues, like establishing the Department of Homeland Security and many other things that were very, very costly; but what I found, Mr. Speaker, is that we were able to balance the Federal budget without touching that inspired document, the U.S. Constitution.

Now, James Madison in Federalist No. 58, I believe, gave the real description of the power that lies here in the House of Representatives. He said that the power over the purse is the most complete and effectual weapon that can empower any group of elected representatives of the people.

We in this institution, Mr. Speaker, have the power of the purse. We have the power of the purse, and we proved in the late 1990s that we have the will to balance the Federal budget without touching that inspired document, the U.S. Constitution. Those were the words of James Madison in Federalist No. 58, that the power over the purse is the most complete and effectual weapon that elected representatives have.

Now some people point to Thomas Jefferson who famously, in a letter to John Taylor written November 26, 1798, talked about how it was essential for us to have a single amendment to the Constitution that would call for a balanced budget. Well, I've got to say, Mr. Speaker, it appears that Thomas Jefferson obviously learned something as well, because 5 short years later, in the third year of the first term of his Presidency, he embarked on the largest deficit expenditure to take place since the Revolutionary War. It was not a war expenditure. It was not any kind of emergency expenditure. It was the 1803 Louisiana Purchase. And that was a decision that Thomas Jefferson made that most of us inferred led to a change in his position from the November 1798 letter that he wrote to John Taylor.

As we look at some of the other arguments--my friend from Fort Lauderdale went through the Fried, Barr, Archibald, Bork arguments on the court. I think it's important for us to look at not just that part of it, but we also need to look at the enumerated powers provision in the U.S. Constitution. I believe that not only could we create, as these brilliant jurists said, a real problem within the court structure, but what we create is a transfer of power from the first branch to the third branch of government, something that is completely contrary to Article I, section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, where the power lies right here in the United States House of Representatives. Why? Because most have said that if we were to get into these protracted legal battles, this could end up in the court, and we could have, several years from now, a court deliberating over a budget that had passed, again, literally years before.

So, as we look at these arguments, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that I will take a backseat to no one when it comes to our commitment to get our fiscal house in order. I do happen to believe that our former colleague Jack Kemp was right when he said we shouldn't have to worship at the altar of a balanced budget; but we all know that with this $15 trillion figure that my friend from Spring Hill pointed to, we need to do everything we can to reduce that debt and our annual deficit. But it's important for us to focus on economic growth. And that's why I congratulate those on the Joint Select Committee who are working on that, and I believe that that's something that we need to do.

But having a balanced budget does not guarantee job creation and economic growth. Yes, of course having a degree of fiscal solvency goes a long way towards generating a climate that can make that happen; but we need to have pro-growth economic policies, and fiscal restraint is only one of those tools. That's why I believe that, as we look at the challenges that lie ahead, I don't want to say to the American people that I'm going to protect you from your future leaders that you are going to elect.

The American people deserve the Congress that they elect. I personally think they deserve better than some of what we have had here over the past several years. Right now we all know we've got a 9 percent approval rating. But the American people cannot have Representatives who say, We are going to say to you that you can't have the leaders that you elect do what you think is right. Maybe there is another Louisiana Purchase out there, and that decision is something that should be made by leaders.

I believe in very carefully amending the Constitution. And I will say that I have always been troubled by some who argue that the level of your commitment to a public policy issue is based only on your willingness to amend the Constitution to implement it. Well, I think that's silly. I think that's ridiculous. I think that someone can be passionately committed to an issue like saying we shouldn't burn the American flag and yet be willing to say it shouldn't be enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. I feel the same way about the issue of a balanced budget.

I'm proud to have voted to bring about these kinds of spending cuts. I'm proud to have done everything possible to try to reduce the size and scope and reach of the Federal Government. I do think that a lot of work has to be done. And my friend from Spring Hill, again, correctly pointed to the fact that both sides have responsibility for increases in spending. But I think we can come together. I think we can have the will to do this.

Even if we pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, we all know very well we're not going to balance the budget overnight with a $15 trillion debt and now multitrillion-dollar deficits. We're not going to do it overnight. But we have to get ourselves on that road, and I'm convinced that we can. And I don't think that amending the Constitution is going to do anything to help us get there.

So I do support the rule, and I think the rule--by the way, I should say to my friend--is one that was used when the Equal Rights Amendment passed the House of Representatives. The argument was made that somehow having this done under suspension of the rules is not fair. There's going to be 5 hours of debate. There's going to be an opportunity to do this.

I've had the opportunity to say my peace. I know that I'm in the minority in my party. I know that there's not a lot of enthusiastic support on my side. I know that there are many Democrats who are going to be supporting the amendment to this. So we are going to have a chance to discuss these as we move through today and tomorrow.

I do support the rule and the work of the Rules Committee. We've worked long and hard on this. But at the end of the day, I have come to the conclusion that I have.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Will the gentleman yield?

I don't want to get into any more trouble than I already have. So if the gentleman could withdraw his compliment, I would be very appreciative of that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.