Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2112) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.

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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 467 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I

may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 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.

House Resolution 467 is a closed rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2112, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, also known as the mini-bus.

Mr. Speaker, this conference report was approved by the conference committee on a wide bipartisan basis with all but one of 38 House and Senate conferees signing off on the report. The bill contains a continuing resolution to avoid a government shutdown and continue Federal operations until December 16, 2011, or until Congress completes the remaining nine FY 2012 appropriations bills. It is important to highlight that this CR is a clean extension and includes no new funding provisions.

In accordance with the Budget Control Act, this conference report upholds the overall discretionary spending level of $1.043 trillion and includes $2.3 billion in disaster relief funding, which falls under the disaster designation cap set by the act.

The Agriculture agencies and programs in this bill will receive a total of $136.6 billion in both discretionary and mandatory funding, a reduction of $4.6 billion from the President's request based on the administration's midsession review. Discretionary funding in the legislation totals $19.8 billion, a reduction of $350 billion below last year's level and a cut of $2.5 billion from the President's request.

It is important to note that mandatory food and nutrition programs within the Department of Agriculture--including SNAP, also known as food stamps, as well as child nutrition--are funded at $98.6 billion. This funding will allow all individuals and families who meet the programs' criteria for aid to receive all the benefits available to them, and includes $3 billion in reserve funds in case of unanticipated increases in participation or food price increases.

Additionally, school lunch and school breakfast programs will receive $18.2 billion in mandatory funding in the agreement. This funding will help low-income students with free or reduced-price meals at schools in every community in the Nation.

The conference agreement includes provisions to prevent overly burdensome and costly regulations and provide greater flexibility for local school districts to improve the nutritional quality of meals in the national school lunch and school breakfast programs. Without these provisions, the cost of these important programs would balloon by an additional $7 billion over the next 5 years, leaving States and local school districts in the lurch.

The WIC program is funded at $6.6 billion. This funding will provide supplemental foods, as well as nutritional and other preventative health services, to low-income participants.

I am pleased to report that the bill places restrictions on the implementation of a Grain Inspection and Packers and Stockyards Administration, GIPSA, proposed rule that would have allowed harmful government interference in the private market for livestock and poultry.

The Commerce, Justice, and Science section of the conference report includes a base total of $52.7 billion, a decrease of $583 million below last year's level, and a decrease of almost $5 billion below the President's request.

The conference agreement includes numerous provisions that protect the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Three of these protections are made permanent law beginning in fiscal year 2012. These three provisions prohibit the Department of Justice from consolidating firearms sales records, electronically retrieving the records of former firearms dealers, and maintaining information on persons who have passed firearms background checks. The conference agreement also contains numerous 1-year firearms protections and new language prohibiting DOJ from requiring imported shotguns to meet a sporting purposes test.

The bill extends important provisions related to Guantanamo Bay, including a prohibition on the transfer or release of any detainee into the U.S. and a prohibition on the acquisition or construction of any new prison to house detainees. Under no circumstances should we endanger our communities by allowing some of the most dangerous people in the world to set foot on American soil.

The conference agreement includes important provisions to protect unborn human life, including a ban on abortion funding for Federal prisoners and a conscience protection for prison employees, and a prohibition on the Legal Services Corporation funds for organizations that engage in abortion-related litigation.

The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development section of the conference report includes a base total of $55.6 billion, representing a decrease of $19.4 billion below the President's request.

The conference agreement provides $500 million for National Infrastructure Investments, commonly referred to as the TIGER program, and includes language prioritizing rail, highway, and transit projects that improve or expand existing systems.

The conference agreement provides $39.9 billion for the Federal highway program, which is the annual spending level set by the latest Surface Transportation Extension Act.

The agreement provides $1.66 billion for the Federal Highway Administration's Emergency Relief program, which assists States in rebuilding Federal highways that were damaged by major natural disasters such as Hurricane Irene and the flooding of the Missouri River.

Included in the conference agreement is $12.5 billion for the FAA. The agreement provides $3.35 billion for airports and $2.7 billion for facilities and equipment. Language is included to restore the Block Aircraft Registry Request program, or BARR, and to prohibit future changes to the program. Also included is $878 million for FAA Next Generation funding to ease congestion and reduce air traffic delays.

The legislation includes a total of $37.3 billion for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, a decrease of $3.8 billion below last year's level and $4.7 billion below the President's request.

The bill does not extend the increased maximum loan limits for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These entities have been under public scrutiny for their questionable business practices and use of billions in Federal bailout funds, some of which have been used for extravagant management bonuses. The bill does allow an increase in the conforming loan limits to the Federal Housing Authority, FHA, which is subject to greater congressional scrutiny and oversight.

Mr. Speaker, I am appreciative of the members of the conference committee and cognizant of the tough jobs they had to get to this bipartisan agreement coming to the floor for consideration. It is for this reason that I urge my colleagues to support the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my colleague from New York that I think the American people are beginning to realize that government spends money; it doesn't invest money.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Our colleagues across the aisle often try to distract from what are the real

issues facing our country and get into the weeds, and bills like this give them a perfect opportunity to do that. But when I'm home every weekend and talk to my constituents, what they're concerned about is they have incredible outrage with the inaction of the liberal Democrat- controlled Senate.

My constituents are aware of the many bills that the House has passed but which are stalled in the Senate, and many of these bills deal directly with promoting jobs, which remains the prevailing issue of so many Americans.

Our colleagues are upset about the quality of the free lunches that we provide. Well, we have more people in poverty and getting free lunches because the Democrat-controlled Senate refuses to work with the Republicans in the House to set an environment where more jobs can be created and fewer people would be dependent on food stamps and be dependent on getting free breakfast and free lunches in the schools.

My constituents understand the colossal failure of the Obama stimulus bill and the general policies that existed when the Democrats were in control of the House for 4 years. My constituents understand that government can create jobs only for more government bureaucrats. And those bureaucrats must justify their existence by creating more regulations that wind up killing more private sector jobs.

The liberal Democrat elites in Washington keep asking for one Republican jobs bill. Well, Mr. Speaker, we've passed at least 20 jobs bills that help the private sector--the only sector of our economy that can actually create real jobs through growth in their businesses.

The liberals keep buying into the false theory that government will create millions of jobs. The reality is that, unless we provide the private sector with an environment that is conducive to job creation, jobs will be very hard to come by.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans have been listening to our constituents, and we're acting to provide private business owners and entrepreneurs with the tools that they need to create jobs. However, the bills we pass and send over to the Senate just sit there and nothing is done with them.

Mr. Speaker, we could reduce the number of children, again, on free and reduced lunches by creating jobs and getting people out of poverty in this country. That's what we should be focused on right now. We could solve a lot of the problems in this country by doing that.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my colleague from New York that I have no requests for time. I do have some more comments that I will make that I am reserving until a little bit later in the time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today allows us to proceed to the general debate of a bill that encompasses three major appropriation measures. I want to thank the conferees for their work on this agreement.

As we move forward with the debate, we must keep in mind the dire fiscal situation that our country is in, and we must continue to work in a fiscally responsible manner.

With that, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2112.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 467, agreed to earlier today, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2112) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

I rise today to present the conference report on H.R. 2112, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2012. The House passed H.R. 2112, the bill making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies, on June 16. The bill has since been amended to include the Commerce-Justice-Science and the Transportation-HUD appropriations bills as well as a continuing resolution to keep the rest of the government operating until December 16.

With the help of our ranking member, the gentleman from Washington, Norm Dicks, we successfully negotiated with our Senate counterparts to craft this agreement, which is the first appropriations conference report to hit this floor since 2009. This report is the next step in meeting the spending targets set by the Budget Control Act, which will save the taxpayers billions and help continue the effort to bring the Nation's deficit under control. In fact, this bill keeps us on track to cut regular discretionary spending by $98 billion compared to the President's fiscal year 2012 request and some $47 billion below the fiscal year 2010 level.

When all appropriations work this year is completed, it will be the second year in a row that we have reduced total discretionary spending, a remarkable and historic achievement. Yet while we've made significant cuts, we were also able to fund important priorities, such as food and drug safety, Federal law enforcement, agricultural and scientific research, trade, infrastructure, and economic growth. Additionally, we're helping communities, States, businesses, and families deeply affected by a record-breaking year of destructive natural disasters and catastrophes.

We scrubbed the information from the agencies and were able to reduce the disaster spending in this bill by $850 million compared to the Senate-passed bill. These funds are only for disaster assistance and do not grow the baseline budgets or the scope of the Federal agencies.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, is the next step in breaking the status quo of excess Federal spending that's throwing our budgets out of whack.

Our House conferees thoroughly examined each and every program and agency to ensure that we are reducing spending wherever possible. In this bill, this includes terminating wasteful, poorly planned and controversial programs such as high-speed rail, NOAA's Climate Change Office, and the Livable Communities program. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have terminated 20 programs for a savings of $456 million.

This legislation also reins in executive branch overreach by including several important policy items. These provisions kill job- killing regulations that create economic uncertainty and limit government involvement in issues of life and liberty, including several provisions protecting human life and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Finally, this legislation includes a continuing resolution that will keep the remainder of the government operating until December 16, allowing us an appropriate amount of time, I think, to finish negotiations on the remaining nine appropriations bills so that we will have all 12 out of the way, leaving the Appropriations Committee clear sailing in January to bring to the floor of the House 12 separate appropriations bills.

I'm very pleased that we were able to reach agreement on this bill. It has become all too rare a thing in this Congress to come to an agreement such as this, and I'm proud to say that this conference report was approved by all but one of the 38 House and Senate conferees from both parties, which goes to show us we work best when we work together. While there are no doubt items where Members might disagree in the bill, there are many achievements in this bill of which we can be justly proud.

However, we could not have done this without the tremendous help from our ranking member, Norm Dicks, as well as the dedicated conferees on both sides of the aisle from both Chambers. Chairman Wolf, Chairman Kingston, Chairman Latham, Ranking Members Farr, Fattah, and Olver, as well as our dedicated staff, have worked tirelessly over the last few weeks to bring this bill to completion, and they have all of our sincere thanks and appreciation for a job well done.

I yield myself an additional 1 minute.

I am proud, Mr. Speaker, that your Appropriations Committee is presenting to you the first Appropriations Conference Report since 2009 and the first conference report of this Congress. Your Appropriations Committee is working.

In closing, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. It's vital we pass this bill to prevent a government shutdown, rein in overzealous regulations, and help put our budgets and our economy on track.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.023

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

And in that H.R. 1, the fiscal year '11 omnibus bill, as you recollect, we had some 500 amendments.

Everybody.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee, a very hardworking chairman who also happens to be a colleague of mine in the class of 1980, the so-called Reaganauts, Chairman Frank Wolf.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa, chairman of the Transportation and HUD portion of this bill, a very vital part of the bill--the chairman has handled it very, very well--Chairman Tom Latham.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, the chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee, a very important part of this bill, Mr. Kingston.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a very distinguished member of our committee, Oklahoma's Mr. Cole.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the conference committee, Mr. Carter.

Mr. Speaker, could I ask the remaining time?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio, a member of the conference committee, Mr. LaTourette.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the conference committee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bonner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, a member of our committee, Mr. Diaz-Balart.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi, a member of our committee and a very valued member, Mr. Nunnelee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

May I inquire of the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I am the last remaining speaker on my side, so I will yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to say a special thanks to my friend from Washington, Norm Dicks, for being a hardworking, cooperative ranking member. We worked together on this bill, and we will continue to do that. And I also want to thank the staff. You know, they don't get enough thanks. These are the people that do practically all the work, day and night, weekends included, holidays included. So thank you to all of the staff, majority and minority, for producing this work.

Let me close, Mr. Speaker, by emphasizing that this conference report is only the first step toward finishing fiscal '12, and I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.

Let me also remind our colleagues that there are no earmarks in this bill. A lot of people said, you cannot pass a bill without earmarks. Well, this bill has no earmarks, not one, not a single one. It also reduces dramatically Federal spending. And when we finish--and I want my colleagues to hear this plainly and clearly--when we finish all 12 bills, we will be at $1.043 trillion, not a penny more. We will be at $1.043 trillion, as provided by the cap under the Budget Control Act. I guarantee that number. I guarantee that number, hear me. So I urge an ``aye'' vote on this first step towards fiscal sanity.

I yield back the balance of my time.