Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

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.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this chart tells the story. We have had a number of opportunities over the years to pass balanced budget amendments to the United States Constitution. It's not my idea; it's not a new idea. But as we've gone through time, we've managed debt. Now, as the chairman just noted, in the last 15 years the debt has tripled.

But looking ahead, this chart, which shows the ratio of our debt to our gross domestic product, and shows that by 2080 it will be nine times the total economic output of our country, indicates that what some on the other side have said simply is not the case.

Congress has not made the tough decisions. We have overpromised the American people, and the fact of the matter is, now we need to have something in the Constitution that the American people expect and demand of us. And that is a balanced budget amendment.

Now, we have lots of different balanced budget amendments that have been proposed in this Congress, I think 18 of them that I've seen thus far. And some ask for more stringent requirements--which I very much like--limiting the ability to balance this budget by putting a heavier burden on the American people through taxes. Capping the amount of money that we spend--certainly something that I also think we need to be cognizant of.

Others have said let's take certain things off the table, like Social Security or capital spending or disaster spending.

This balanced budget amendment, which passed this House with 300 votes, including 72 Democrats, strikes the right balance. It enshrines in our Constitution the principle that we should live within our means but gives future Congresses the flexibility to, in times of national emergency, have some years that are not balanced. That, I think, is a reality that we have to deal with.

But the fact of the matter is that in the last 50 years, since 1961, this Congress has balanced the budget of this Nation six times. It should be the other way around. There are certainly 6 years in those 50 that were crises in which you might say we should not balance the budget this year.

But when the gentleman from New York says that in good times we should pay down the debt, and in tough times we should borrow, that has not been what has happened because most of those 50 years have been good times.

Now, there's another important point to make here. Any amendment to the United States Constitution has to, by its very nature, be bipartisan. It requires a two-thirds majority. And many of my friends on the other side of the aisle have worked very hard to build support on their side of the aisle for this. I especially want to thank Peter DeFazio and Jim Cooper. Many Members, the Blue Dogs, have endorsed this balanced budget amendment. But it is necessary to have a bipartisan approach to this.

And you know what? This is a bipartisan problem. There have been Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents, Republican Congresses and Democratic Congresses that have contributed to those 44 years when we've run deficits.

So now today we come and ask for a bipartisan solution to this problem, a solution that, depending upon the poll, 75 to 80 percent of the American people support.

Congress continues to prove it cannot make the tough decisions on its own. The budget has only been balanced six times in 50 years. The American people know what it means to balance their budgets. They are surprised that the Congress does not have this requirement. State governments do--49 out of 50 States, most of which have it in their constitutions. Local governments have to balance their budgets. Families and businesses have to live within their means, and they can't go more than a few years without living within their means.

But to run up a $15 trillion debt which, divided by the population of our country, means that the average person today owes more in debt based upon their share of the government's debt than they have in personal income, is a disgrace. This is not only an economic issue. This is not only something that we should be imposing upon future Congresses for economic reasons. This is also a moral issue.

This is wrong to borrow money year after year after year, over a trillion dollars in each of the last 3 years, so that today the average dollar spent by the Federal Government, 42 percent of it, by far the largest share, is borrowed against our children's and grandchildren's future.

And where does that lead us? It leads us to where Europe is.

This chart shows government debt as a percentage of GDP for the United States and five European countries--Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, and Greece. When Greece first got into their problem last year, they were at 120 percent of GDP. That's what their debt totaled. Already just a little over a year later, it is 152 percent of GDP because their economy is shrinking because of irresponsibility on the part of their government.

The United States just this week crossed the 100 percent line. The United States owes as much in debt as we have in the total economic output of this Nation for 1 year.

It is time to put a halt to this, and the best way to do it is to enshrine in our Constitution a principle we all understand, we all live by, and that is you cannot live like this, you cannot live beyond your means year after year after year.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join this bipartisan effort to enshrine in our Constitution a principle sought by the vast majority of the American people.

I thank the chairman, and I just want to make it very clear that some inaccurate assertions have been made about the protection of Social Security and highway trust funds.

The funds can be spent each year, and then any excess funds that need to be retained can be put into a rainy day fund. And so the Social Security trust fund or another type of fund like that is perfectly permissible under this provision. What is not permissible is continuing to run up debt year after year after year, and that is what endangers Social Security and Medicare and important programs for our senior citizens, and that is why this amendment is needed.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), the ranking member of the Seapower Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say that the last time that the Congress balanced a budget with a Democratic controlled Congress was 1969, more than 42 years ago.

At this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the chairman of the House Republican Conference.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to complete the record.

As I said in my remarks earlier, Presidents of both parties and Congresses of both parties have much to explain in terms of the lack of the balanced budgets over the last 50 years. Only six times in 50 years have they been balanced. But here is the record: of the 13 of those 50 years that Republicans controlled the Congress, they only balanced the budget four times. Of the 37 years that Democrats controlled the Congress, during that time, they only balanced the budget twice.

It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire), a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), a member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the chairman of the Agriculture Committee General Farm Commodities Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to answer the question, what do the 99 percent want? Well, CNN asked them in July. The answer was 74 percent favored a balanced budget amendment; 74 percent of men, 75 percent of women, 76 percent of white voters, 72 percent of nonwhite voters, 72 percent of 18- to 34-year-olds, 74 percent of 35- to 49-year-olds, 75 percent of 50- to 64-year-olds, 79 percent of 65 and older voters want a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution.

At this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan), chairman of the Counterterrorism and Intelligence Subcommittee of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold), a member of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

As the gentleman from Utah correctly noted, it requires the same supermajority of 60 percent to not balance the budget or to raise the debt limit. Quite frankly, if you have a constitutional amendment in place that requires a balanced budget, you're going to generate surpluses most years, and therefore raising the debt limit will occur less and less frequently. But those two requirements are in place in order to have an enforcement mechanism so that Congresses of the future will not do what Congresses of the past have been doing.

Would the gentleman repeat that question?

I understand it and answered it.

The answer is, yes, it requires a supermajority to raise the debt limit and a supermajority to not balance the budget, which would be an unusual thing in the future because in the last 50 years, it's only been balanced six times.

No, there is no such requirement today.

Absolutely.

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.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this misguided attempt to amend our constitution. It is both bad economic policy and bad constitutional policy.

Let's start with the basics. While balancing your budget and paying down your debts is important--and we did that under President Clinton-- a balanced budget every year, regardless of the circumstances, even when facing economic crisis, a natural disaster or a terrorist threat, is economically dangerous. We would be risking economic ruin if we enshrined this unyielding rule in the Constitution and shackled future generations to one particular economic policy preference that does not work at all times and in all situations.

In general, the economists tell us, in good times, you should have a balanced budget and pay down the debt. In bad times, when a recession increases demands on government and tax revenues fall, or in emergencies, you need to be able to run a deficit.

The nonpartisan economists at Macroeconomics Advisers, for example, tell us that if this amendment were in effect next year, in fiscal year 2012, it would eliminate 15 million jobs and double the unemployment rate. And this amendment would shackle future generations in such situations.

One thing we can be sure of, this amendment will devastate the economy; destroy Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security; cripple our government's ability to deal with national emergencies, maintain our vital infrastructure, or deal with new challenges as they emerge.

Let's be clear on what this amendment does not do. It does not require us to balance the budget the way States or businesses or families do. They're not required to spend no more than that year's income. Families borrow money. If they were told you must pay cash--you want to buy a house, pay cash; you want to buy a car, pay cash--they wouldn't have the house, they wouldn't have the car, the standard of living would be much lower.

States borrow money. States have balanced budget amendments generally, but those amendments refer to their operating budgets. They borrow money for their capital budgets to build bridges and roads and highways. The budget of the United States does not make such a distinction, and this balanced budget amendment would say you can never borrow money. You cannot borrow money to build highways, to make investments, to deal with the economy in a recession. It doesn't make sense.

Similarly, we collect payroll taxes to pay for Social Security benefits. We collect gasoline taxes to pay for transportation infrastructure, and we carry over unexpended funds in those trust funds from prior years. Because they were paid in prior years, those revenues would not count, only the expenditures. If you paid $100 in Social Security taxes in 1960 and drew $100 of benefits in 2011, the budget would show a deficit of $100 because the tax was paid in a different year, even though it's the same money. No matter how much money we had put away for a rainy day, we would still be limited to spending no more than that year's tax revenues. No one in this room balances their budget that way.

What happens when you retire and your income drops? Do you not touch your savings because it didn't come in during that year? Of course not. You're not running a deficit when your expenses equals that year's income plus savings.

I know we have a lot of millionaires here, but did anyone pay cash for their home?

But this amendment enshrines crazy bookkeeping and distorted policies into our Constitution. So all the chatter about States and businesses and families balancing their budgets is true, but it's irrelevant to what this amendment actually says.

Because this is a constitutional amendment, it would give Federal judges, those same unelected, life-tenured Federal judges my Republican friends always complain about, the power to cut spending and raise taxes. Anyone could bring a lawsuit if the budget doesn't balance, if the estimated receipts, in his opinion, didn't match the estimated tax revenues, and a judge would have to decide whose revenue and expenditure estimates were correct. And if they didn't match in the judge's opinion, the judge would have to decide to increase taxes or to cut expenditures and which expenditures it cut, an unelected judge.

How is that possible? It's possible because, as a constitutional amendment, the courts will have to have the power to enforce it, just as they do the rest of the Constitution.

The Constitution now gives the power to tax in the first instance to the House. All revenue measures must originate here. That's because we are closest to the people--the people's House. This would go as far away from that wise decision as you possibly can by giving that power ultimately to the only part of government that is not elected by the people and that is not accountable at the ballot box--the judiciary.

The courts could also order reduction in spending to enforce a balanced budget. They could slash military spending or Social Security or eliminate disaster relief. The voters and Congress would be powerless to stop such decisions.

Is this really someone's idea of constitutional conservatism?

This amendment isn't limited to a requirement that we balance the budget. It imposes a three-fifths supermajority requirement to raise the debt ceiling. When we considered that in 1995, it never occurred to anyone that any Member of Congress, much less a majority, would consider allowing the United States to default on its debt. It wasn't just considered crazy; it was considered impossible.

Today, unfortunately, we live in a different world. This year, for the first time in American history, we nearly defaulted on the full faith and credit of the United States and, for the first time in our history, saw our top credit rating downgraded, and that was for difficulty in getting a simple majority. A three-fifths majority would make it much more difficult.

Is this balanced budget amendment necessary?

We have been told it's the only way to impose the necessary discipline to force Congress to balance the budget. We know that's not true because we balanced the budget under President Clinton. We turned in four balanced budgets and ran a surplus. In fact, in 2001, Alan Greenspan, testifying in favor of President Bush's proposed tax cuts, said we had to reduce taxes because we were going to eliminate, pay down the entire national debt in 10 years, and that would be a bad thing, he thought, for various reasons. But that was the danger--we'd pay down and eliminate the national debt.

But President Bush and a Republican Congress succeeded in turning that record surplus into record deficits in record time. They did it with two huge tax cuts, two unfunded wars, a prescription drug benefit that wasn't paid for, and the rejection of the Democratic Congress' pay-as-you-go rule. It was all done off the books.

And I have heard the calumny that it was wild spending by the Obama administration that has brought about our $15 trillion national debt. Well, the truth of the matter is, if you look at non-defense discretionary spending, everything we do, other than defense and Social Security and Medicare and veterans benefits and interest on the debt, adjusted for population and for inflation, it hasn't gone up by a nickel since 2001.

The fault, dear colleagues, is not in our Constitution; it's in an irresponsible Republican President and an irresponsible Republican Congress. Many of those same Republican Members who saw nothing wrong with busting the budget, who sat quietly when Vice President Cheney said that deficits don't matter, now demand this assault

on our founding document instead of delivering the votes for sound fiscal policy.

We should do our jobs, not wreck the Constitution and the economy with snake oil cures like this. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I have to correct what the distinguished gentleman from Virginia said a moment ago when he said that this amendment would not affect Social Security because Social Security would be paid for by the trust fund. This amendment says the total outlays cannot exceed receipts. Total outlays should include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principle. That includes Social Security, which the courts have held is not a debt. Therefore, Social Security would have to be paid out of the same amounts, and they would be counted against the overall outlays when calculating whether the budget is in balance, something that's not the case today. It would throw the budget further out of balance and would require deeper cuts.

If this amendment were in effect today, Medicare would have to be cut by $750 billion, Social Security by $1.2 trillion, and veterans benefits by $85 billion through 2021. Despite anything anyone may say on this floor, that's the simple truth about this amendment.