Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), my very good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a list of over 270 organizations opposed to the balanced budget amendment.

National Organization Opposing the Balanced Budget Amendment

9to5, National Association of Working Women; AASA, The

School Superintendents Association; Academy of Nutrition and

Dietetics; ADAP Advocacy Association (aaa+);

Advance CTE; Advocates for Youth; African American Health

Alliance; AIDS Alliance for Women, Infants, Children, Youth &

Families; AIDS Community Research Initiative of America; AIDS

United; Alaska Wilderness League; Alliance for a Just Society

D535; Alliance for Excellent Education; Alliance for Justice;

Alliance for Retired Americans; Alliance for Strong Families

and Communities; American Association for Dental Research;

American Association for Justice; American Association of

Colleges for Teacher Education; American Association of

University Women (AAUW).

American Council on Education; American Counseling

Association; American Dance Therapy Association; American

Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO; American

Federation of Labor (AFL-CIO); American Federation of School

Administrators (AFSA); American Federation of State, County

and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); American Federation of

Teachers, AFL-CIO; American Indian Higher Education

Consortium; American Jewish Committee (AJC); American Music

Therapy Association; American Network of Community Options

and Resources (ANCOR); American Postal Workers Union, AFL-

CIO; American Public Health Association; American School

Counselor Association; American Speech-Language-Hearing

Association; Americans for Democratic Action (ADA); Asian &

Pacific Islander American Health Forum (APIAHF); Asian

Americans Advancing Justice--AAJC; Asian Pacific American

Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO (APALA); Association for Career and

Technical Education.

Association for Psychological Science; Association of

Assistive Technology Act Programs (ATAP); Association of

Educational Service Agencies; Association of Farmworker

Opportunity Programs; Association of Flight Attendants--CWA;

Association of School Business Officials International

(ASBO); Association of University Centers on Disabilities

(AUCD); Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America; Autism

National Committee; Autistic Self Advocacy Network; Bazelon

Center for Mental Health Law; Bienestar Human Services; B'nai

B'rith International; Bread for the World; Campaign for

America's Future; Campaign for Youth Justice; Catholics in

Alliance for the Common Good; Center for Community Change

Action; Center for Family Policy and Practice Center for Law

and Social Policy (CLASP).

Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc.; Center for Public

Representation; Center for Science in the Public Interest;

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; Child Care Aware of

America; Child Welfare League of America; Children's Action

Alliance; Children's Defense Fund; Children's Dental Health

Project; Children's Health Watch; Children's Leadership

Council; Citizens for Tax Justice; Clinical Social Work

Association; Coalition for Health Funding; Coalition on Human

Needs; Commission on Adult Basic Education (COABE); Committee

for Education Funding; Common Cause; Communications Workers

of America (CWA).

Community Access National Network (CANN); Community Action

Partnership; Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America

(CADCA); Concerned Black Men National; Conservation Legacy;

Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED); Corporation

for Supportive Housing; CoSN--the Consortium for School

Networking; Council for Exceptional Children; Council for

Opportunity in Education; Council of Administrators of

Special Education, Inc.; Council of the Great City

Schools; CREDOCriminalization of Poverty Project at the

Institute for Policy Studies; Defenders of Wildlife;

Democracy 21; Demos; Department for Professional

Employees, AFL-CIO; Disability Rights Education and

Defense Fund; Disciples Justice Action Network; Easter

Seals.

Ecumenical Poverty Initiative; Every Child Matters;

FamiliesUSA; Farmworker Justice; Feeding America; First Focus

Campaign for Children; Food & Water Watch; Food Research &

Action Center (FRAC); Foster Family-based Treatment

Association; Franciscan Action Network; Franciscans for

Justice; Friends Committee on National Legislation; Friends

of the Earth; Futures Without Violence; Gamaliel; Gay Men's

Health Crisis (GMHC); Generations United; Global Justice

Institute; Health Care for America Now (HCAN); Health GAP

(Global Access Project).

Higher Education Consortium for Special Education; Housing

Works; Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy; Interfaith

Worker Justice; International Association of Fire Fighters;

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace

Workers; International Brotherhood of Boilermakers;

International Brotherhood of Teamsters; International

Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers (IFPTE),

AFL-CIO; International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace

and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW;

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE);

Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Jobs With Justice; Justice

in Aging; LeadingAge; League of Conservation Voters; League

of United Latin American Citizens; League of Women Voters of

the United States; Learning Disabilities Association of

America; Main Street Alliance.

Medical Mission Sisters, North America; Medicare Rights

Center; Mental Health America; Metropolitan Community

Churches; Mom2Mom Global; MomsRising; NAACP; NASTAD (National

Alliance of State & Territorial AIDS Directors); National

Academy of Elder Law Attorneys; National Active and Retired

Federal Employees Association (NARFE); National Advocacy

Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; National Alliance

for Partnerships in Equity (NAPE); National Alliance of HUD

Tenants; National Alliance to End Sexual Violence; National

Asian Pacific American Women's Forum; National Association

for Children's Behavioral Health; National Association for

College Admission Counseling; National Association for

Hispanic Elderly; National Association for Music Education;

National Association for the Education of Young Children.

National Association of Area Agencies on Aging (n4a);

National Association of Councils on Developmental

Disabilities; National Association of County and City Health

Officials; National Association of County Behavioral Health

and Developmental Disability Directors; National Association

of Elementary School Principals; National Association of

Federally Impacted Schools; National Association of Letter

Carriers; National Association of Private Special Education

Centers; National Association of School Psychologists;

National Association of Secondary School Principals; National

Association of Social Workers (NASW); National Association of

State Directors of Special Education; National Association of

State Head Injury Administrators; National Birth Defects

Prevention Network; National Black Justice Coalition;

National Center for Law and Economic Justice; National Center

on Domestic and Sexual Violence; National Coalition Against

Domestic Violence.

National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community

Development (National CAPACD); National Committee to Preserve

Social Security and Medicare; National Community Development

Association; National Congress of American Indians; National

Council for Behavioral Health; National Council for Community

and Education Partnerships; National Council of Asian Pacific

Americans; National Council of Jewish Women; National Council

of La Raza (NCLR); National Council on Independent Living;

National Disability Institute; National Disability Rights

Network; National Domestic Violence Hotline; National Down

Syndrome Congress; National Education Association (NEA);

National Employment Law Project; National Fair Housing

Alliance; National Federation of Federal Employees; National

Health Care for the Homeless Council; National Hispanic

Medical Association.

National Housing Law Project; National Housing Trust;

National Immigration Law Center; National Latina Institute

for Reproductive Health; National LGBTQ Task Force Action

Fund; National Low Income Housing Coalition; National

Multiple Sclerosis Society; National Network to End Domestic

Violence; National Organization for Women; National

Partnership for Women & Families; National People's Action;

National Priorities Project; National PTA; National

Recreation and Park Association; National Respite Coalition;

National Rural Education Advocacy Coalition; National Rural

Education Association; National School Boards Association;

National Skills Coalition; National Superintendents

Roundtable.

National Treasury Employees Union; NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE;

National Viral Hepatitis Roundtable; National WIC

Association; National Women's Health Network; National

Women's Law Center; National Working Positive Coalition;

Natural Resources Defense Council; NDD United; Network for

Environmental & Economic Responsibility of United Church of

Christ; NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby;

Not Dead Yet; OWL-The Voice of Women 40+; PAI; Paralyzed

Veterans of America; Partnership for America's Children;

People for the American Way; PICO National Network; Planned

Parenthood Federation of America; Prevention Institute.

Professional Aviation Safety Specialists (PASS);

Progressive Congress; Project Inform; ProLiteracy; Protect

All Children's Environment; Public Advocacy for Kids; Public

Citizen; Public Health Institute; Racial and Ethnic Health

Disparities Coalition; RESULTS; Sargent Shriver National

Center on Poverty Law; School Social Work Association of

America; School-Based Health Alliance; Senior Executives

Association (SEA); Service Employees International Union

(SEIU); Share Our Strength; Sinsinawa Dominican Peace and

Justice Office; Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Congregational

Leadership; Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Western Province

Leadership; Sisters of Mercy South Central Community.

Social Security Works; Southeast Asia Resource Action

Center (SEARAC); Special Needs Alliance; State Innovation

Exchange (SiX); Stewards of Affordable Housing for the

Future; Susan G. Komen; TESOL International Association; The

AIDS Institute; The Arc; The Leadership Conference on Civil

and Human Rights; The National Coalition for Literacy; The

National Crittenton Foundation; The Sisters of Mercy of the

Americas, Institute Justice Team; The United Methodist

Church--General Board of Church and Society; Transportation

Trades Department, AFL-CIO; Treatment Action Group (TAG);

Tremor Action Network; Trust for America's Health (TFAH);

UNCF; Union for Reform Judaism.

United Auto Workers (UAW); United Cerebral Palsy; United

Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries; United

Spinal Association; United States Student Association (USSA);

United Steelworkers (USW); USAction; Voices for Progress;

Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement (WISER);

Young Invincibles; YouthBuild USA; ZERO TO THREE.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters: one from AFSCME and one from AARP.

American Federation of State, County and Municipal

Employees, AFL-CIO,

Washington, DC, April 10, 2018.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.6 million members

of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal

Employees (AFSCME), I am writing to urge you to vote no on

H.J. Res. 2 and to reject this and any other effort to amend

the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced budget.

The proposed constitutional amendment is a draconian and

unwise proposal that would damage the economy, result in huge

job losses and weaken vital public services that all

Americans depend upon. It unwisely requires outlays to match

receipts each year regardless of economic conditions, a

supermajority vote of three-fifths to increase the debt

ceiling with limited exceptions for outlays to exceed

receipts only in times of war, but not during recessions or

disasters.

H.J. Res. 2 is a false attempt to claim fiscal

responsibility on the heels of a reckless tax cut that is

projected to cause the deficit to skyrocket to $1.9 trillion

over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget

Office (CBO), and to exceed $2.5 trillion if its tax policies

are extended. The tax cut for the wealthy and big

corporations irresponsibly forced revenues to their lowest

levels since 1956, an unsustainable level far below what is

needed to support programs that provide basic needs for

struggling families, to promote economic growth and meet

other critical needs like investing in infrastructure and

education.

H.J. Res. 2 would irresponsibly require a supermajority

vote to lift the debt ceiling, an already difficult vote that

subjects the U.S. and worldwide economies to instability and

potential economic destruction. Further, requiring a balanced

budget annually would take away the ability to respond to

changing economic conditions and raise serious risks of

tipping weak economies into recession and making recessions

longer and deeper. Most egregious, H.J. Res. 2 is a thinly

veiled attempt to force drastic changes to Social Security,

Medicare, Medicaid and veterans' benefits that Americans earn

and depend on.

H.J. Res. 2 is a dangerous and fiscally irresponsible

political maneuver. AFSCME urges you to reject this

politically motivated and dangerous proposal.

Sincerely,

Scott Frey,

Director of Federal Government Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, let me read a couple of paragraphs from this letter from AFSCME.

``The proposed constitutional amendment is a draconian and unwise proposal that would damage the economy, result in huge job losses, and weaken vital public services that all Americans depend on. It unwisely requires outlays to match receipts each year regardless of economic conditions, a supermajority vote of three-fifths to increase the debt ceiling, with limited exceptions for outlays to exceed receipts only in times of war, but not during recessions or disasters.''

This is a false attempt to claim fiscal responsibility on the heels of a reckless tax cut projected to cause the deficit to skyrocket to $1.9 trillion over the next decade.

Mr. Speaker, let me read from the AARP letter. This is, as we know, AARP, the largest nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to empowering Americans over 50 on how they choose to live as they age. And

here is what they had to say: ``A balanced budget amendment would likely harm Social Security and Medicare, subjecting both programs to potentially deep cuts without regard to the impact on the health and financial security of individuals. It would also likely diminish the resources available for programs assisting Americans who are least able to provide for themselves--services such as meals or heating for those who are too poor or physically unable to take care of their basic needs without some support.''

Mr. Speaker, the letter goes on to say:

``The lack of a dependable Social Security and Medicare benefit would be devastating for millions of Americans. Social Security is currently the principal source of income for half of older American households receiving benefits, and roughly one in five households depend on Social Security benefits for nearly all . . . of their income. Over 50 million Americans depend on Medicare, half of whom have incomes of less than $24,150. Even small fluctuations in premiums and cost sharing would have a significant impact on the personal finances of older and disabled Americans.''

Mr. Speaker, I am here to say that we are in strong opposition to the so-called balanced budget amendment today. There is a word that has been thrown around in this discussion. Because I care about words, I wanted to make sure that I was using the right word for what is happening. So I looked in the dictionary, and I looked up the word ``hypocrisy.'' Here is the definition of hypocrisy: hypocrisy is the practice of claiming to have standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform. The dictionary definition goes on to say: a pretense.

That, Mr. Speaker, is what is happening, a pretense.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the word ``hypocrisy.'' I mentioned the word ``pretense.'' If this was such an important issue, why did it not get proposed before the GOP tax scam? Because if the majority is really worried about the deficit, then they would not have passed a tax scam that cost this country $1.9 trillion simply to give tax cuts to the wealthiest individuals and corporations in our country.

This morning in the Budget Committee where I serve as vice ranking member, the Congressional Budget Office Director, Keith Hall, reaffirmed what we always knew, that these tax cuts do not pay for themselves. He also told us that there is no such thing as sustained growth of the rates that our Republican colleagues have thrown out there and said are going to happen.

So if the majority were worried about a balanced budget, they should have voted ``no'' on the GOP tax scam. But that is not what my Republican colleagues did. If they were worried about a balanced budget, then Republican colleagues should not have insisted on a $670 billion military spending budget. But we didn't hear a peep about this then. You can't just oppose spending, Mr. Speaker, when you don't like the things that we are spending on.

By the way, I have some breaking news: Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. Republicans have control. But as we are seeing, that does not mean that Republicans know how to govern.

This amendment is a new low to showcase a contempt of the American people's memory and intelligence. But I believe that the American people are watching. They didn't buy the tax scam where they are now seeing that only 5 percent of those tax cuts are actually going to workers, and they are not going to believe in this maneuver either, Mr. Speaker.

Why? Because, as I said during the tax scam debate on the floor last year, the American people are going to rise up against any concerted and naked effort to cut earned benefit programs like Medicare and Social Security. I want to emphasize the words ``earned benefit'' because people call them entitlement programs, but Social Security is a program that people have contributed to with a promise that they would be taken care of when they retire.

But let's talk about the real purpose of this balanced budget amendment. It is similar to what I said on the floor last year in the middle of this debate, a three-step dance. Step one, pass a GOP tax scam to transfer $1.3 trillion in debt from working Americans to the wealthiest 1 percent and largest corporations.

Step two, explode the deficit--exactly what we heard from the CBO Director today--$2 trillion to the budget deficit over the next 10 years.

Step three, use those exploding deficits to justify deep cuts to the very programs that matter the most to Americans, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

We have already seen this strategy in the President's fiscal year 2019 budget which slashes $500 billion from Medicare, $1.4 trillion from Medicaid, and $72 billion from Social Security disability.

Mr. Speaker, it is not just the American people and Democrats in Congress who have noticed the hypocrisy of what is being proposed today. Even some Republicans in Congress have talked about it. Our colleague, Congressman Mark Meadows, said--and these are his words that I am quoting--``There is no one on Capitol Hill, and certainly no one on Main Street, that will take this vote seriously.''

He is right. This isn't going to fool anyone, least of all the American people.

Americans deserve so much better. My friend from Georgia talked earlier about how we both sit on the Budget Committee, and we have actually had conversations about how we wish we could actually talk about real solutions. That doesn't happen as often as it should, and certainly if you want to have a conversation about the deficit and the debt, we should have that. But to propose a balanced budget amendment after you have already voted for a tax cut that increased the deficit by $2 trillion over the next 10 years, that, I think, is something that people will see through. Americans will see through that just as they saw through whom the benefits of the tax cut are actually going to.

So, Mr. Speaker, today I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and let's get back to the real work of serving the American people with real discussions and real questions that come up at the time when they are relevant.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think it is important for those of us who have served here that we are down this frivolous route again: this unconstitutional effort to remedy the disaster that has been perpetrated by the Republican tax scam.

Let me tell you what the CBO Director said, who is known to be the bipartisan, nonpartisan arbiter of the work that the Congress does.

First of all, they say the tax cut will create deficits of historic proportions. Not Medicaid or Medicare or Social Security. An $800 billion deficit in 2018, $1 trillion in 2019, and $1 trillion in 2020. That is what the Republicans have created.

Now, in this false and ridiculous, possibly unconstitutional effort, here we go again with a balanced budget amendment that will, in fact, deny and implode the needs of those who need Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid.

This balanced budget amendment is antidemocratic in that it requires a supermajority in Congress to increase the debt limit, deficit spending, or raise revenue. All would have been unnecessary if we had not passed the tax scam. Remember, we gave the corporate tax relief a 21 percent number, instead of 25 percent, coming from 33 percent, when they didn't ask for it.

It is antidemocratic because it enshrines one particular economic theory into the Constitution: depriving future voters and future Congresses of the ability to adopt other economic approaches. That is our responsibility as leaders giving oversight to the needs of the American people, to the needs of the Pentagon, and to the needs of domestic spending.

By the way, this deficit will be more than domestic spending and defense spending. It raises separation of powers concerns because it would open the door to allowing Federal courts to make budget policy decisions. It is economically harmful because it would hamper the ability of Congress to respond to economic downturns and other emergencies.

Were anyone here in 2007 and 2008, particularly when the Secretary of the Treasury under the Bush administration came and told this Democratic Congress, of which I was a Member of, that America, as we knew it, was getting ready to end, that we saw the demise of Lehman Brothers and the collapse of the market, it wasn't Democrats who did that, it was Republicans. It is economically harmful because it would hamper the ability again for us to deal with those kinds of downturns.

It jeopardizes funding of Social Security and the military and civil service retirement system, and it undermines the Nation's financial system, including deposit insurance. It is unnecessary because Congress was able to achieve a balanced budget in the 1990s, of which I was here through the existing political process, and created the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Therefore, this balanced budget amendment is an amendment that creates havoc. What we should do is to undo the tax scam, repeal it, start again, and not implode Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. To the seniors who are living there: don't buy into a balanced budget amendment which is unconstitutional, buy into repealing the tax scam and standing for the American people.

I conclude by saying many national groups oppose this.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 2, the so- called Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which properly should be called the ``Cut, Cap, and End Medicare and Destroy Social Security Act'' because this is exactly what will happen if this amendment is passed by Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the several states.

A balanced budget amendment is a perennial gimmick periodically dusted off by House Republicans to divert attention from their manifest inability to govern competently or to manage the nation's finances.

H.J. Res. 2 is no exception coming as it does on the heels of the report by the Congressional Budget Office documenting that the Trump/ GOP budget deficit continues to climb and is projected to exceed $800 billion this year and to top $1 trillion next year and to remain at that level for foreseeable future.

Moreover, the CBO report confirms that the GOP TaxScam passed last year by this Republican Congress on a party-line vote will not pay for itself and is in fact the major cause of the rising the deficit.

Mr. Speaker, if our friends across the aisle really want to shrink the deficit, reduce the national debt, practice fiscal responsibility, and bring about sustained economic growth and prosperity, there is a much better, easier, and more certain way to achieve these goals than by tampering with the U.S. Constitution.

The easier and better way is for the American people to put a Democrat in the White House and Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

In the 1990s under the leadership of President Clinton the budget was balanced for four consecutive years, the national debt was paid down, the national debt, 23 million new jobs were created, and projected surpluses exceeded $5 trillion.

Under President Obama the financial crisis and economic meltdown inherited from his Republican predecessor was ended, the annual deficit was reduced by 67 percent, the auto industry was saved from collapse, and 15 million jobs were created.

In contrast, under every Republican administration since President Reagan the size of the deficit bequeathed to his successor was substantially larger than the one he inherited, a major economic recession occurred, and economic growth was lower than the.

Turning to the joint resolution before us, I strongly oppose this latest gimmick for the following reasons:

1. it is anti-democratic in that it requires a supermajority in Congress to increase the debt limit, deficit spending, or raise revenue;

2. it is anti-democratic because it enshrines one particular economic theory into the Constitution, depriving future voters and future Congresses of the ability to adopt other economic approaches;

3. it raises separation of powers concerns because it would open the door to allowing federal courts to make budget policy decisions;

4. it is economically harmful because it would hamper the ability of Congress to respond to economic downturns and other emergencies;

5. it jeopardizes funding for Social Security and military and civil service retirement systems;

6. it undermines the nation's financial system, including deposit insurance; and

7. it is unnecessary because Congress was able to achieve balanced budgets in the 1990's through the existing political process.

It is for these reasons that numerous outside groups committed to the economic well-being of the United States as well as organizations concerned with the needs of the elderly, the middle class, children, and other basic needs of national importance strongly opposed a measure in the 112th Congress virtually identical to Chairman Goodlatte's current H.J. Res. 2, and that measure failed to garner a supermajority as required by the Constitution.

These groups included a coalition of 123 religious, labor, education, civil rights, child advocacy, and other organizations; a coalition of six national environmental organizations representing over one million members and activists; OMB Watch (now the Center for Effective Government); the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO); the Service Employees International Union (SEIU); the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); the National Education Association (NEA); the National Women's Law Center, Committee for Education Funding, and the Coalition on Human Needs.

Although there is a clear need to lower the long-term federal budget deficit, requiring a balanced budget through a constitutional amendment would be disastrous for the U.S. economy.

This Amendment is portrayed as the alternative to our country's deficit issue, but in reality, a Balanced Budget Amendment truly undermines the goal of a balanced budget by

threatening the survival of such critical programs as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that serve as fundamental safety nets for millions of Americans.

These important social programs face greater demand when federal receipts are in rapid declines.

Requiring a balanced budget would force cuts to these and other important programs or force tax increases.

Either prescription would risk tipping a faltering economy into recession or making recession worse.

Any constitutional balanced budget amendment would limit the ability of the federal government to make important investments in worthy causes, including crucial public safety and homeland security programs.

Even at times of fiscal austerity, we must continue to provide for the country's public safety and homeland security needs.

Any constitutional balanced budget amendment would grossly undermine the ability to protect the lives and well-being of Americans nationwide.

Further, this Amendment will gridlock Congress during an economic downturn.

There has never been such a blatant effort to ransom the American economy in order to extort from the American public.

While I support bipartisan efforts to increase the debt limit and to resolve our differences over budgetary revenue and spending issues, I cannot support a bill that unduly robs average Americans of their economic security and ability to provide for their families, while constraining the ability of the Congress to deal effectively with America's economic, fiscal, and job creation challenges.

We need to change the tone here in the Congress.

There has been a theme in previous Congresses and in this Congress of focusing on cutting programs that benefit those who need it most, while ignoring the need to focus on real and contemporary job creation and economic recovery.

And by real and contemporary job creation, I do not mean Trump's unsubstantiated and impossible promise of coal jobs.

The creation of coal jobs is one of the many myths and false hopes peddled by the current White House.

The promise that jobs in coal are just around the corner is fake news.

Our time could be better spent focusing on ways to increase American jobs, growing our economy, and investing in our people, paying our bills, and resolving our differences.

That is the way you make and keep America great.

A balanced budget is not something that should be mandated in our Constitution, nor is it something that should be required every year, proposing an idea that offers little guarantee of success.

In particular, during economic downturns, the government can stimulate growth by cutting taxes and increasing spending.

And in fact, the cost of many government benefit programs is designed to automatically increase when the economy is down--for example, costs for food stamps (SNAP) and Medicaid increase when more people need to rely upon them.

These countercyclical measures lessen the impact of job losses and economic hardship associated with economic downturns.

The resulting temporary increases in spending could cause deficits that would trigger the balanced budget requirements at the worst possible moment.

A constitutional amendment requiring the Congress to cut spending to match revenue every year would both limit the Congress's ability to respond to changing fiscal conditions and would dramatically impede federal responses to high unemployment as well as federal guarantees for food and medical assistance.

As with the outlay cap that a Balanced Budget Amendment would bring, tying outlays to a percentage of GDP would impose arbitrary limits on government actions to respond to an economic slowdown or recession, when GDP declines.

Cutting spending during a recession could make a recession worse by increasing the number of unemployed, decreasing business investment, and withholding services needed to jump-start the economy.

The proposed Balanced Budget Amendment would render Social Security unconstitutional in its current form due to the Amendment's prohibitive stance on that system of spending.

Capping future spending below Reagan-era levels would force devastating cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Head Start, child care, Pell grants, and many other critical programs.

Because this proposal would make it impossible for the Congress to increase revenues rather than to cut spending, it is virtually a political ploy that reflects the Republican priorities of ending the Medicare guarantee while cutting taxes for millionaires.

The need to raise the debt ceiling has no correlation to whether future budgets are balanced; increases in the debt ceiling reflect past decisions on fiscal policy.

And as demonstrated by current disagreement about whether and when to raise the debt ceiling, Congress does not need to impose further barriers to its consideration.

Treasury has warned that failing to raise the debt ceiling and the resulting government default, which would be unprecedented, would have catastrophic impacts on the economy.

Interest rates would rise, increasing costs for the government and for American businesses and families.

Any cuts made to accommodate a mandated balanced budget would fall most heavily on domestic discretionary programs; the immediate result of a balanced budget amendment would be devastating cuts in education, homeland security, public safety, health care and research, transportation and other vital services.

Under H.J. Res. 2 total funding would be cut for non-defense discretionary programs, including veterans' medical care, most homeland security activities, border protection, and the FBI.

Therefore, these cuts will impact funds to protect our nation's food and water supply, environmental protections, medical research, education, and services for disadvantaged or abused children, frail elderly people, and people with severe disabilities.

The Founders purposely made the Constitutional amendment process a long and arduous one.

It is foolish, reckless, and decidedly not conservative to rush to pass an amendment altering our nation's founding document on such short notice and without reasonable time for debate.

Republicans who support this proposed amendment to the Constitution have demonstrated, at this critical juncture in American history, that they are profoundly irresponsible when it comes to the integrity of our economy and utterly bereft of sensible solutions for fixing it.

Medicare covers a population with diverse needs and circumstances.

Most people with Medicare live on modest incomes.

While many many beneficiaries enjoy good health, 25 percent or more have serious health problems and live with multiple chronic conditions, including cognitive and functional impairments.

Today, 43 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries are between 65 and 74 years old and 12 percent are 85 or older.

Those who are 85 or older are the fastest-growing age group among elderly Medicare beneficiaries.

With the aging and growth of the population, the number of Medicare beneficiaries more than doubled between 1966 and 2000 and is projected to grow from 45 million today to 79 million in 2030.

For these reasons, I am strongly opposed to despoiling the Constitution by even considering the Republicans' latest Balanced Budget Amendment gimmick.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 985 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres), 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 may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on House Resolution 985, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule forward on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, and also H.R. 3281, the Reclamation Title Transfer and Non-Federal Infrastructure Incentivization Act.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate for each bill, equally divided by the chair and ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Natural Resources Committee, respectively. It also provides for a motion to recommit for each bill.

Last night, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from the sponsor of H.R. 3281, Mr. Lamborn from Colorado, about his bill and its importance for improving the management of water and water-related facilities. We also heard from my friend and a former Rules Committee member, Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, on H.R. 50, which she introduced.

Mr. Speaker, both of these bills are, at their core, about promoting effective government and enhancing the cooperation and collaboration between the government and non-Federal entities.

The Federal Government has its hands in a lot of things. That is not always a bad thing, but we see far too many instances where Federal involvement does more harm than good. That is why Republicans in this Chamber are committed to reining in the Federal Government where it needs to be reined in, to increasing its efficiency and transparency, and to giving the American people a louder voice in the decisions that impact them.

H.R. 3281, the Reclamation Title Transfer and Non-Federal Infrastructure Incentivization Act, empowers water users and seeks to reduce the administrative paperwork and liability Federal taxpayers bear by streamlining the process through which some Bureau of Reclamation projects are transferred to non-Federal entities.

Today, the Bureau of Reclamation is the Nation's largest wholesale water supplier, providing one out of five Western farmers with irrigation water and delivering trillions of gallons to people annually.

Under the current law, the BOR is allowed to transfer day-to-day operational and maintenance responsibilities to project beneficiaries, but the Bureau cannot transfer title or ownership of any of these facilities unless

Congress specifically enacts legislation authorizing such a transfer.

This legislation recognizes that Federal bureaucracy is not doing any favors for water users or for aging infrastructure projects. That is why this bill focuses on empowering local water users and incentivizing non-Federal investment in water infrastructure. This bill helps reduce regulatory paperwork and the Federal backlog on water infrastructure repair, while increasing efficiencies for water users.

Where Congress can streamline Federal operations and increase local control to the benefit of taxpayers and end users, we should act. H.R. 3281 is a step toward accomplishing both of these goals on Bureau of Reclamation projects.

On the next bill, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act. As I mentioned earlier, this bill continues the trend of empowering State and local governments and lightening the grip of the Federal Government.

In 1995, Congress acted through the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to prevent the imposition of burdensome and costly Federal unfunded mandates on State and local governments. That was a worthy goal 23 years ago and remains so today.

As a former appropriator at the State level in the State of Georgia, I understand, many times, what good-intentioned work from up here can do, actually, on impacts to State budgets and local budgets, and this is a worthy goal for us to take up.

It has become clear, however, unfunded mandates are slipping through the cracks or, perhaps more accurately, flooding through gaping holes in the system. In fact, according to an Office of Management and Budget report, unfunded mandates and Federal regulations cost States, cities, and the public between $44 billion and $62 billion annually. Even in a town used to throwing around big numbers, that is a big number.

Mr. Speaker, I know the communities in my home of northeast Georgia often struggle to make ends meet. Local governments are rarely flush with cash, and they have to make tough decisions about what priorities receive funding, and in what amounts, in order to best serve their communities. Unfunded mandates, particularly the unexpected ones, can significantly hamper those efforts.

In fact, in recognition of this problem and in pursuit of a solution, those who are most affected by the issue of unfunded mandates--State and local governments--overwhelmingly support this legislation.

The so-called Big 7 organizations representing the State and local governments and officials--the National Governors Association, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the United States Conference of Mayors, the Council of State Governments, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the International City/County Management Association--sent a letter earlier this year urging enactment of H.R. 50.

The Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act represents the type of action Congress is supposed to take. It identifies a problem, it acknowledges the need for policy updates, and it incorporates stakeholder feedback in order to solve that problem.

The bill provided for by this rule closes loopholes in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and applies the requirements of that law to independent agencies. The bill provides for expanded input from State, local, and Tribal governments, as well as from the private sector, by requiring agencies to consult with the government and with the private sector when they are developing significant regulatory mandates.

Mr. Speaker, the importance of this update to the law cannot be overstated. I believe that the men and women eking out a living or building a business on the ground know what problems exist and how to remedy them better than the people who are currently residing in cubicles in Washington, D.C.

When bureaucrats are writing regulations that impact northeast Georgians, they need to consult with and glean insight from northeast Georgians. They also need to understand that what works for northeast Georgia might not work for southeast Georgia, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, Ohio, or anywhere else besides where they are.

If the Federal Government is going to implement regulations that impact private entities--which they do far too often, with far too little benefit, in my opinion--those entities need to have and deserve a voice in the process.

H.R. 50 helps give the private sector that agency. It also requires rules that aren't preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking to undergo a UMRA analysis if the effects on State, local, and private sectors total $100 million or more. The bill codifies longstanding regulatory principles regarding cost-benefit analysis and when to regulate, and supports more accurate economic analysis.

Mr. Speaker, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was designed to promote informed decisionmaking throughout the legislative and regulatory process, in consultation with the entities affected by those processes. Those goals are just as important, if not more important, today as when the UMRA was originally signed into law in 1995.

Congress needs to take responsibility to help reduce the burdens regulatory agencies have placed on State and local governments, as well as private entities. Without question, Congress must work to close these loopholes and reduce bureaucracy.

These are the simple concepts, Mr. Speaker: Unnecessary, burdensome Federal regulations should be identified and reconsidered, and the people and businesses impacted by regulations should have a voice in the regulatory process.

I believe government can operate more efficiently and effectively when we give local stakeholders a voice, when we seek to increase efficiency and remove unwieldy mandates, and when we work to reduce the Federal bureaucracy.

The bill provided for by this rule takes steps in doing just that. I believe that they are steps that we in the House should support to help American communities, citizens, and consumers.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will close by paraphrasing a comment that the Honorable Chairwoman Foxx made yesterday evening in the Rules Committee.

By the way, I want to bring it back: There is a lot of discussion that we are going to have, but, actually, the rule is about two bills that my friends didn't discuss at all. I hope they vote yes on that, so we can move legislation that has helped move the bureaucracy out of the way, so that things can actually, with common sense, get done. We don't choose to talk about that.

We have a lot of issues. I am in agreement on a lot of things that we need to do. We need to fix our immigration system. But today, let's remind ourselves on the floor what we are doing. It is a rule to deal with two specific bills dealing with regulatory issues.

Ms. Foxx said this yesterday in far more eloquent words than I am offering right now, that those opposed to the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act are those who support unbridled regulations.

I do not support unbridled regulations. I think there are some good regulations, and I think there are some regulations that are necessary. Far too often, we see the Federal Government flooding our community with regulations that do little to achieve their intended benefits, yet come with massive bills, and Washington expects the American people to foot the bill.

Maybe my friends across the aisle enjoy that. Maybe my friends across the aisle want that to continue to happen. Maybe my friends across the aisle who want to vote no on this want to continue to see this happen. We don't. We believe that there is a better way.

The bills provided for by this rule recognize the role of the Federal Government, but they take needed steps to magnify the voices of those closest to the issues.

I support this rule, and I support the underlying bills. I encourage all to do so and look at it honestly from the perspective of those who pay our bills, the people who pay the bills for this government, the ones who go to work every day, who pay their taxes, who want their government to do what the government is supposed to do and stay out of the areas where they are not supposed to be.

This is what this is about, Mr. Speaker, plain and simple, bringing it back to the truth of the rule that we are debating, and that is what I believe is important.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 2) proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.J. Res. 2, currently under consideration.

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

March 2, 1995, was a pivotal day in the history of our country. On that day, the United States Senate failed by one vote to send a balanced budget constitutional amendment to the States for ratification. The amendment had passed the House by the required two- thirds majority, and the Senate vote was the last legislative hurdle before ratification by the States.

If Congress had listened to the American people and sent that amendment to the States for ratification, we would not be facing the fiscal crisis we are today. Rather, balancing the Federal budget would have been the norm, instead of the exception, over the past 20 years, and we would have nothing like the annual deficits and skyrocketing debt we currently face.

In 1995, when the balanced budget amendment came within one vote of passing, the gross Federal debt stood at $4.9 trillion. Today, it stands at over $20 trillion. The Federal debt held by the public is rising as well and is increasing rapidly as a percentage of the country's economic output. Unlike the past, when the debt spiked to pay for wars of finite duration and then was reduced gradually after hostilities ended, more recently, the debt has risen as a result of having to pay for entitlement programs that are of indefinite duration and difficult to reduce over time.

As John Cogan of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University wrote: ``All of the increase in Federal spending relative to GDP over the past seven decades is attributable to entitlement spending. Since the late 1940s, entitlement claims on the Nation's output of goods and services have risen from less than 4 percent to 14 percent. Surprising as it may seem, the share of GDP that is spent on national defense and nondefense discretionary programs combined is no higher today than it was seven decades ago.''

As the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has observed, such high and rising debt will have serious negative consequences. Interest rates will increase considerably, productivity and wages will be lower, and high debt increases the risk of a financial crisis.

What is particularly troubling is that the debts we are incurring under entitlement programs will burden multiple future generations. Indeed, a few years ago, a cross-national study found that the United States ranked worst among 29 advanced countries in the degree to which it imposes unfair debt burdens on future generations.

University of Virginia philosophy professor Loren Lomasky has written that theorists have devoted considerable attention to injustices committed across lines of race and gender. Far less attended are concerns of intergenerational fairness. That omission is serious. Measures that have done very well by the baby boomers are much less generous to their children and worse still for their grandchildren. The single greatest unsolved problem of justice in the developed world today is transgenerational plunder.

It is time for Congress to stop saddling future generations with the burden of crushing debts to pay for current spending. We should not pass on to our children and grandchildren the bleak fiscal future that our unsustainable spending is creating.

The only way to ensure that Congress acts with fiscal restraint over the longterm is to pass a balanced budget amendment. Experience has proved time and again that Congress cannot for any significant length of time rein in excessive spending. Annual deficits and the resulting debt continue to grow due to political pressures that the Constitution's structure no longer serves to restrain.

In order for Congress to be able to consistently make the tough decisions necessary to sustain fiscal responsibility, Congress must have the external pressure of a balanced budget requirement to force it to do so. Constitutional principle will prevail where political promises have not.

The Framers of the Constitution were familiar with the need for constitutional restrictions on deficit spending. When the Constitution was ratified, it was the States that had exhibited out-of-control fiscal mismanagement by issuing bills of credit to effectively print money to pay for projects and service debt. As a result of that lack of fiscal discipline, Article I, section 10 of the Constitution specifically deprives States of the power to issue bills of credit. Over 200 years later, it is the Federal Government that has proved its inability to adopt sound fiscal policies, and it is now time to adopt a constitutional restraint on Federal fiscal mismanagement.

Several versions of the balanced budget amendment have been introduced this Congress, including two I introduced this Congress, as I have every Congress for the last decade. H.J. Res. 2, the version we are debating today, is nearly identical to the text that passed the House in 1995 and failed in the Senate by one vote. It requires that total annual outlays not exceed total annual receipts. It also requires a true majority of each Chamber to pass tax increases and a three- fifths majority to raise the debt limit.

Today is the day we can turn proposals into legislative action. Our extraordinary fiscal crisis demands an extraordinary solution. We must rise above partisanship and join together to send a balanced budget amendment to the States for ratification.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and in freeing our children and grandchildren from the burden of a crippling debt they had no hand in creating so they can be free to chart their own futures for themselves and for their own posterity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), a member of the Judiciary Committee and chairman of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), a member of the Judiciary Committee and chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Judiciary Committee and chairman of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds just to set the record straight.

We did indeed hold a hearing on the balanced budget amendment. I do agree with the gentleman from Michigan that the obvious was stated in that hearing, but a hearing was indeed held.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson), and I ask unanimous consent that he may control that time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Ferguson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).

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

In closing, let me quote President Ronald Reagan. In his address to the Nation on the fiscal year 1983 Federal budget, he said:

``Only a constitutional amendment will do the job.''

``With the stick of a balanced budget amendment, we can stop government squandering, overtaxing ways, and save our economy.''

A few years, later he said this in his weekly radio address:

``One part of our Founding Fathers' genius was their provision for amending the Constitution. They knew they had created a good document but not a perfect one. In fact, even two centuries ago, some of them, especially Thomas Jefferson, were troubled by one omission: the lack of a limitation on public borrowing by the Federal Government.''

``Well, even in their reservations about the Constitution, the Founding Fathers were perceptive and wise.

``I think most of you know how badly out of control Federal spending has gotten in recent years;''--I'm quoting President Reagan in 1980-- ``today the national debt is $2.25 trillion.''

``. . . I'm one of those Americans who has always believed that a constitutional amendment mandating that Congress balance the budget is the answer to what ails us.''

That was 30 years ago. Today the national debt is over $20 trillion, and President Reagan's words ring 10 times louder as a result.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and in freeing our children and grandchildren from the burden of a crippling debt they had no hand in creating so they and their own children and generations to come can be free to chart their own futures.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment to the United States Constitution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the proposed balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Specifically, the resolution prohibits total outlays from exceeding total receipts for each fiscal year unless a three-fifths supermajority of the whole membership of each House of Congress votes to override the prohibition. The resolution also requires a three-fifths supermajority of each House in order to raise the Federal debt limit.

There are only two conclusions one can reach about this legislation. Either it is fundamentally unserious--a facade designed to pretend that Republicans, on the heels of a massive Republican tax giveaway to corporations and the very rich that will increase the deficit by at least $1.5 trillion over the next decade, have a shred of credibility when it comes to claims of fiscal responsibility; or it is deadly serious--the first step toward their ultimate goal of slashing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and other critical elements of the social safety net--because you cannot have these enormous tax cuts and balance the budget without slashing spending programs that most Americans depend on.

Understand the context in which we are considering this legislation. White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney recently admitted that the Republican tax windfall for the rich would cost the Federal Government $1.8 trillion in revenue over the next decade.

In the wake of their budget-busting tax scam, House Republicans have the nerve to now seek to have us vote on this balanced budget amendment because they want to maintain the illusion that they care about fiscal responsibility. This is the height of hypocrisy.

But if we assume that Republicans actually intend to pass this legislation, we should recognize the catastrophic consequences it would have on senior citizens or the disabled and on low-income people. That is because it would require radical spending cuts to achieve balance, with the principal targets being social safety net programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that millions of Americans depend on.

I want to commend Mr. Goodlatte for his honesty. He has spent part of his speech talking about how we have to cut entitlements.

What are the chief entitlements? Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

He talks about the lower percentage of expenditures that went for entitlement programs years ago before Medicare and Medicaid were enacted. Of course, we spend more on entitlements now that we have Medicare and Medicaid.

But what is really causing deficits is not Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. It is the Republican tax cuts. In the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was elected, the total Federal national debt from George Washington through Jimmy Carter was under $800 billion. Then we had the Reagan tax cuts, and when George Bush left office 12 years later, the national debt had skyrocketed from $800 billion to $4.3 trillion. Then we had President Clinton, a Democratic Congress, and Newt Gingrich, who deserves some credit for it too, and we had 3 years of balanced budgets in the late 1990s. In 2000, the projection was for $5.65 trillion Federal surplus over the next 10 years.

Alan Greenspan, testifying in favor of the Bush tax cuts, said that we have to pass these tax cuts because otherwise we will totally pay off the national debt, and that is a bad thing for various reasons. So we passed the Bush tax cuts--the Republicans did--and between that and funding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars without a tax increase off the credit card, we greatly increased the national debt again.

So the Democrats have come in and cleaned up the messes that Republicans have left on the national debt by their huge tax cuts for the rich, and now they tell us we can't afford Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid because we must keep these tax cuts for the rich going.

This legislation would also undermine the Federal Government's ability to respond to an economic crisis. When the Nation's economy weakens, incomes of individuals and businesses decrease because of job and business losses because of unemployment increasing, which in turn automatically results in reduced tax revenues.

Meanwhile, spending on programs like unemployment insurance benefits and food stamps automatically increases as more people lack jobs and rely on unemployment benefits and food stamps to stay afloat. These programs also help overcome a downward spiral in the economy as they help stabilize the decline in consumer purchasing power and prevent a recession from turning into a depression.

But by requiring a balanced budget, this constitutional amendment would effectively prohibit the government from drawing on these critical stabilizers.

Although the resolution allows Congress to override the amendment's balanced budget mandate, it requires a nearly insurmountable three- fifths supermajority of the entire membership of the House in both Houses. By the time Congress could react to an economic crisis, it would have greatly delayed the stimulating effect of the stabilizers. This legislation would almost guarantee that a recession would become a depression. Meanwhile, millions of Americans who depend on these vital programs for food, shelter, and rent would go without assistance.

In addition to making it harder to avoid an economic crisis, this resolution could actually help to precipitate one. By requiring a three-fifths supermajority vote of each House of Congress to raise the debt limit, H.J. Res. 2 increases the probability that the government will default on its obligations and cause the Nation to spiral into a financial and economic crisis.

Beyond its devastating economic and social consequences, this resolution is also anti-democratic. To the extent that it requires a supermajority to undertake certain steps, such as waiving the balanced budget requirement or raising the debt limit, it shifts power away from the elected Representatives of a majority of the American people to a determined minority that can thwart the majority's will.

Moreover, this bill inappropriately seeks to enshrine into the Constitution one particular economic view that would bind future generations and future Congresses that they elect.

Whatever anyone may think about economic policy and government financing, those kinds of policies should be enacted as legislation that can be modified, amended, or repealed by future majorities, not enshrined in the Constitution to bind future generations to the opinions of this generation. That is fundamentally undemocratic and tyrannical.

Finally, this resolution suffers from a fundamental flaw to its construction. There is no enforcement mechanism, and it is not clear what would happen if Congress ignored it and passed an unbalanced budget without the required supermajority. Presumably, it would somehow be resolved in the Federal courts. We would see judges ordering tax increases, or cuts in Social Security, or revising the transportation budget, you name it, without any legislative guidance, and on what basis they would make such decisions is anyone's guess.

We should not have judges determining inherently political questions regarding budgetary decisions, upending the principle of separation of powers and generating massive litigation over questions ranging from who has the standing to sue, to what remedies a court can impose if it found a violation.

This legislation is ill-conceived and deeply problematic. As I stated earlier, this resolution is either a farce--just for show and a few well-timed press releases--or it is a Trojan horse--an innocuous looking resolution that is really designed to enable the long-held Republican dream of dismantling Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid,

a goal they could never achieve politically but might achieve with a constitutional amendment on the balanced budget. Either way, this resolution is not worthy of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 2, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Delaney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).

Mr. Speaker, I would note that most households do not balance their budgets. They borrow to buy the car, they borrow for the mortgage, and if they didn't do that, they wouldn't have a car or a mortgage.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).