Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring a balanced budget for the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, happy St. Patrick's Day to everybody. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, for whom I have much admiration and respect, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, what on Earth are we doing here? Yesterday, the President of the United States spent an hour at lunch talking about the Kennedy Center--you know, the place he slapped his name on before basically running it into the ground.

Today, the Congress of the United States is spending an hour debating messaging bills that totally ignore the realities of what is going on in people's everyday lives.

Does anyone on the other side of the aisle realize that the United States of America is at war right now? Does anyone in the Republican Conference want to acknowledge that costs are up, corruption is running rampant, and everyday people are getting screwed?

They promised lower costs on day one. That is what Donald Trump promised. Guess what. Gas is up, thanks to the war in Iran. Groceries are up, thanks to the tariffs. Rent is up. Childcare is up. Healthcare is up, with millions of Americans paying double and triple for their health insurance and over a million losing it altogether because of Republican inaction.

Do Republicans plan to do anything about any of that? No.

This is what they did instead. They jammed through a big, ugly bill to help billionaires. They defend Trump's tariffs that are raising costs on working people. They continue to cover up for the predators in the Epstein files. Now, they are backing another illegal war in the Middle East that is costing over a billion dollars a day in taxpayer money.

But they are not talking about any of that. They keep bringing distraction after distraction to the House floor, bills meant to waste time, divide people, and shift the blame from billionaires onto immigrants. That is their whole playbook.

Don't look over here at Epstein elites and billionaire corporations who are ripping us off, breaking the law, and getting away with it. No, no, no. Blame the immigrants. Blame trans kids. Blame Joe Biden. Blame everybody but the President and his billionaire buddies. It is getting old, and I, for one, am sick and tired of it.

This President and my friends on the other side, who are refusing to rein him in because they are all afraid of him, are burning a billion dollars a day of American taxpayer money on a war halfway around the world. That is $1 billion a day. Let me repeat that: $1 billion a day.

There is no more money to help seniors heat their homes. They say we don't have it. There is no money to help kids get healthy breakfasts in school. There is no money to restore SNAP benefits to help seniors and veterans afford groceries. There is no more money to help working families breathe easier or sleep better at night.

I am just sick and tired of this, Mr. Speaker. There is always money for war. There is always money for another tax break for multimillionaires, billionaires, and giant corporations. There is always time to debate silly bills that try to shift the blame onto immigrants and trans kids, but there is never the time or the money to address the real and pressing issues that the American people are begging Republicans to help them with.

This is an embarrassing debate. This is an embarrassing moment for this Congress. While everybody in this country is in an uproar over rising costs, people are begging us to address that issue, to lower costs, and to help make their lives easier. While that is what is on the minds of the American people, Republicans can't bring themselves to bring legislation to the floor to address those issues. It really is sad. It really is sad.

Again, I think that my friends are going to realize come the midterm elections that people have had enough of this. But really people can't wait until the next election. People need us to address these concerns now.

This is an embarrassing debate, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am just going to respond to the gentlewoman because she wants me to address some of the underlying bills. One of them, H.R. 4638, is the so-called BOWOW Act of 2025. We are debating something and saying that it should be illegal when it already is illegal. It is kind of redundant.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a noncitizen who is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude is subject to removal. In 2018, the Board of Immigration Appeals found that the crime of animal fighting is a crime involving moral turpitude because there is a clear intent to harm an animal.

Let me read to you how this bill we are talking about came to be. On June 24, 2025, canine detective and U.S. Customs and Border Protection Beagle Brigadier Freddie and his handler were inspecting baggage from Cairo, Egypt. Beagle Brigadier Freddie's job is to sniff out prohibited agriculture products at the border that could threaten vital agricultural industries.

Beagle Brigadier Freddie alerted to one of the suitcases being transported by Hamed Ramadan Bayoumy Aly Marie, an Egyptian national. As Beagle Brigadier Freddie continued his investigation, his handler began questioning Mr. Marie who abruptly and violently kicked the canine detective. The kick was of such force that it launched Beagle Brigadier Freddie, a 25-pound beagle, off the ground. After examination by a veterinarian, it was determined that Beagle Brigadier Freddie suffered contusions on his right ribs following the attack.

Mr. Marie was taken into custody and charged with harming animals used in law enforcement under the law. He pleaded guilty. He was ordered to pay Freddie's vet bill, and he was deported back to Egypt. That is the law.

What the hell are we doing here? I mean, we are repeating what was already in the law.

I guess the difference would be if the bill that the gentlewoman is advocating actually became law, then Mr. Marie would escape any kind of financial responsibility of paying Freddie's vet bill. I don't think we want that. But this was a deportable act, and this gentleman was deported.

When I say that this is a distraction, this is what I am talking about. Again, we are spending a billion dollars a day, my friends, on this war in Iran, and nobody knows what the hell is going on.

Gas prices are through the roof. The cost of everything is going up. We are here on the floor basically trying to bring bills that restate current law?

I would even say that in this case it weakens current law.

I have got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I think things are screwed up around here when our focus is on the stuff that we are bringing to the floor today and not on trying to lower the costs for the American people.

Life is hard. I don't know whether my friends go home and talk to their constituents or do townhalls or do town meetings, but if they do, they are hearing what I am hearing: Life is too damn expensive.

People want us to address the high costs, and we are not doing that. We are not doing that, and Republicans refuse to bring legislation to the floor to address that issue. Instead, we do this.

Mr. Speaker, I am a huge animal rights advocate, and so I want people who abuse animals to be deported. I don't have any problem with that, but that is the law. We are bringing this to the floor, and we are not doing a damn thing about addressing the high costs that Americans are facing each and every day. Something is wrong with this place.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me read for my colleagues a statement from the national director of the National Economic Council, Mr. Hassett, who works for President Trump.

This is his quote: ``If the war were to be extended, it wouldn't really disrupt the U.S. economy very much at all. It would hurt consumers, and we'd have to think about what we'd have to do about that, but that's really the last of our concerns right now.''

This is from Trump's top economic adviser. This is a direct quote from him.

He says that hurting consumers is the last of our concerns right now.

This guy should be fired. This is outrageous. We all should be worried about consumers. Those are our constituents. When prices are going up, people cannot make ends meet. They can't afford their rent, they can't afford their healthcare, and they can't afford their groceries.

Madam Speaker, they can't afford a damn thing, and this is what Trump's top economic adviser says: The consumers are really the last of our concerns right now?

Does anything outrage my Republican colleagues?

Can anybody in the Trump administration say anything that might give them pause and that might cause them concern?

This is outrageous. Three out of four Americans say that groceries are so expensive that they have been forced to cut down on other spending.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from Fortune titled: ``Three in four Americans say groceries are so expensive they've been forced to cut down on other spending.''

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record an article from CBS8 titled: ``National average gas prices now nearly 90 cents higher than one month ago.''

Madam Speaker, I hate to tell my Republican friends this, but here is a news flash: The American people are struggling. They are desperately looking for us to take action to make their lives easier, to help them be able to afford groceries, to be able to afford gas prices, and to be able to afford to support their families.

While we are spending $1 billion a day on a reckless and illegal war in Iran and the President with no end in sight has money for that, my friends on the other side can't bring themselves to bring legislation to the floor that will address the high cost of living.

Madam Speaker, when you have people in the administration saying that consumers are the last of their concerns, I mean like, I am just like every time I think this administration can't say something that will shock me even more, they do. This is one of the more outrageous comments coming from one of the President's top advisers.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I just want to say the gentlewoman is doing exactly what I predicted she would do: blaming immigrants so that people who are watching this debate don't focus in on the fact that prices are going through the roof and everything is more expensive than ever.

She said that Trump is doing better than Biden in terms of gas prices. Well, when Biden left office, the average gallon of gas was $3.11. It is now close to $3.80. It is creeping up to nearly $4. I mean, that is just the reality. People can google that. Don't take my word for it. You can google it.

The other fact is that, if I remember correctly, Donald Trump said that when he became President, he and Republicans would lower costs on day one and everything would go down. What a crock. Everything has gone up. Everything has skyrocketed. Gas, rent, the price of food-- everything has gone way up.

I am going to read this again because I can't get this out of my head that somebody in this administration would say this out loud. Again, this is what the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Kevin Hassett, said: If the war ``were to be extended, it wouldn't really disrupt the U.S. economy very much at all. It would hurt consumers, and we would have to think about . . . what we would have to do about that, but that is really the last of our concerns right now. . . .''

This is one of the President's top economic advisers telling the American consumer: The hell with you. You don't matter. You are at the bottom of our list.

That tells you everything you need to know.

I heard the gentlewoman's 1-minute speech before we got into this debate, when she kind of defended the tax cuts for the rich and basically said that we have a spending problem in this country.

Okay, we have a spending problem. We are spending a billion dollars a day on a reckless, illegal war in Iran, and nobody on the other side seems to give a damn about that. We don't have money to help make sure that we can lower energy costs for senior citizens. We don't have money to make sure our kids get nutritious breakfasts and lunches in schools. We don't have money for anything, for childcare, eldercare, our veterans, or our healthcare in general.

We are told we don't have the money, but no debate and no concern about a billion dollars a day on Iran? Come on. I mean, enough is enough.

The focus of Congress, the focus of government, should be about helping people, not screwing them over, not hurting them. The focus of our government should not be about enriching the rich, protecting the Epstein class, the people who are well-off and well-connected and who have tons of money.

The focus ought to be on how to lift up working families in this country. That is what Democrats have been fighting for. That is what we stand for. There is a difference here.

Again, going back to Kevin Hassett, his comment today. He says the quiet part out loud. The consumers, according to him, are the last of our concerns right now.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I am almost at a loss for words. I don't even know how to respond to that. That gets like five Pinocchios. I don't know what the gentlewoman is talking about. She talked about the debt and reducing the debt. My friend, who I respect and enjoy working with, voted for a reconciliation bill that added nearly $5 trillion to the debt.

Let me say that one more time: It added nearly $5 trillion to the debt. Most of that additional cost to the debt were in the form of tax cuts for multimillionaires and billionaires.

She talks about the Republicans trying to cut fraud, waste, and abuse. They cut programs like SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, to help senior citizens and veterans and low-income families be able to put food on the table, a benefit, by the way, that is on average about $2 per person per meal. That is what SNAP is.

They cut money for child nutrition programs. They cut money for school nutrition programs. They cut money for environmental protection, for infrastructure. I go right down the list, economic development for our farmers, everything.

They had Elon Musk come in with DOGE, and they claim they saved all this money. Guess what. All of the cuts that they made, by the way, I think we are going to pay for down the road because they are going to add costs in a whole bunch of other ways. All of that so-called savings has just been eliminated by what has been spent on the war in Iran, a billion dollars a day. We are at $22, $23 billion already on that war.

We are not anywhere near done. They tell you that we can't deal with the fact that we have so many senior citizens in this country who can't afford to put food on the table. We can't do anything about that. Then they say nothing about the billion dollars a day on an illegal and reckless war in Iran.

For the record, I will include the CBO score, that is the Congressional Budget Office, on their reconciliation bill in the Record because I want the Record to reflect that what I am saying here is backed up by facts. This is a nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Both Democrats and Republicans rely on the CBO for scores on how much things are going to cost.

This is crazy that we are having this debate, all the while the cost of living for every person in this country, who is not a multimillionaire or billionaire who is not part of the Epstein class, is going through the roof.

By the way, when you talk about taxes on people, what my friend didn't mention was the tariffs. That is a tax on every American. That is a tax on every American. We are now told that these tariffs are costing the average citizen of this country an additional $1,700 per person per year. I don't know who is asking for this stuff, but it is certainly not the people that I talk to.

Madam Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 7481, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act 2026, sponsored by Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, a bill which only funds law-abiding agencies under the Department of Homeland Security and not the unlawful actions of ICE and CBP.

Madam Speaker, House Republicans are trying to use President Trump's illegal war in Iran as pretext to force Congress to fund ICE and CBP without any reforms, even though these agencies are harassing, detaining, beating, and killing American citizens. This is a cheap trick to score political points, and we are not buying it. I don't think anybody in the country is buying it.

You can't make this up. The President's own National Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, who Trump himself appointed and basically every single Republican in the Senate voted to confirm this guy, resigned this morning stating that he cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran and that ``Iran posed no imminent threat to our Nation.''

Also, Republicans already funded ICE and CBP in their big, ugly bill so why are they holding up funding for TSA, the Coast Guard, and FEMA? Republicans should allow a vote to fund the law-abiding components of DHS while negotiations on critical reforms to ICE and CBP continue.

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

Madam Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and the sponsor of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

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

Madam Speaker, nobody disagrees that we should have a secure border. That is not the debate.

Where there is disagreement and, quite frankly, where there is outrage is when we have a Federal agency that goes into our communities and kills American citizens. This is not at the border but in our heartland. That is where we believe there is a line that has been crossed. We are outraged over that.

I am sorry that my friends on the other side are not. They control the House. They control the Senate. They control the White House. They are in charge. If they want our votes, we are not going to vote to continue to fund agencies and departments within agencies that are rogue, where there is no accountability and where there is no transparency. We are not going to do that.

We support TSA, the Coast Guard, and FEMA. We will vote to support them, but don't ask us to fund agencies that do harm to our constituents.

By the way, is there any end to what my Republican colleagues want for CBP and for ICE? They have got money in the big, ugly bill for them, billions and billions of dollars for them. I don't understand what the deal is.

In any event, for whatever reason, they have a problem with TSA. They have a problem with FEMA. They have a problem with the Coast Guard. I don't understand why. We don't. We support them.

Madam Speaker, the pattern here is obvious. It is broken promises, higher costs, more war, more hate, alternative facts, and unbelievable corruption. That is what is happening in this country right now because of Republican leadership.

Republicans said they would fight for ordinary people. Instead, they helped billionaires. They said they would keep us out of war. Instead, they dragged us into another one. Madam Speaker, 13 American troops are dead. Over 140 are wounded. Our Nation is, once again, sending $1 billion a day over to the Middle East on another reckless, illegal war of choice.

They said they would tell the truth. Instead, they protect the Epstein elites and peddle distraction after distraction after distraction, hoping it will all go away.

At the center of it all is a President so hollow, so unwell, and so morally lost that he is fundraising off of dead American troops. I can't believe I am saying that sentence out loud.

The President of the United States went to a dignified transfer of remains ceremony. He refused to take off his ball cap. Then he took a photo of himself standing behind an American servicemember in a casket coming home from war in the Middle East. He slapped it on a fundraising email, asking people to donate money to his campaign. Let me say that again.

The President used a dead American servicemember as a photo op for his campaign fundraising. When he was asked about it yesterday, he said he saw nothing wrong with that.

Can anyone imagine if Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, or Joe Biden had done that? My Republican colleagues' heads would explode. That is what happened after Joe Biden checked his watch during one of these ceremonies. Yet, there was not a word after this disrespectful President dishonored our troops in the most outrageous way by using them as a prop for his own personal benefit.

I challenge any Republican, any single one, to come down here and defend this. Come down here and explain to their constituents why the leader of their party is fundraising off of dead American servicemembers.

I think it is one of the most disrespectful, inappropriate, awful things I have ever, ever seen in all my time in Congress. I doubt a single Republican will have the guts to say it was wrong.

The American people deserve a hell of a lot better than this chaos and cruelty. They deserve better than this President. They deserve better than this Republican majority. They deserve elected officials who care about them and who want to fight to lower the cost of living, who want to make their lives better and easier and more manageable. That is not what is happening here.

With all that is going on--$1 billion a day on a reckless illegal war in Iran, gas prices creeping up to nearly $4 a gallon, and the price of groceries going up because of these stupid tariffs that my friends don't want to deal with--I can go on and on and on about how the Republican policies are making life more miserable for average Americans. With all that is going on, they can't be bothered to come down here.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I rise to oppose H.J. Res. 139, a feeble attempt by the President's budget-busting, blank-check enablers in Congress to distract America from their own staggering and historic fiscal irresponsibility.

Everyone knows they control the House. They control the Senate. They control the White House, and they have used their total power over our Federal Government to drive our country into a deep ditch of deficits, debt, illegal tariffs, undeclared wars, and economic destruction.

After adding $4 trillion to our national debt with their tax breaks for the super rich, every Republican in the Chamber but Representatives Massie and Davidson voted to allow President Trump to keep spending between 1 and $2 billion every day, not of his own money but of our money, on his unauthorized and unconstitutional war in Iran, without so much as a single vote or a single honest debate on the floor of the House.

This war of choice and aggression, which is spiraling out of control now in the Middle East, and which President Trump now calls this ``little excursion,'' has already cost 13 American servicemembers their lives and wounded over 200 Americans in uniform, while killing more than a thousand Iranian civilians, including 170 children at a girls' school that was bombed in the first week of Donald Trump's war.

But still our colleagues sit there passive, invertebrate, and complicit in the face of this brazen usurpation of congressional war powers, rising from their constitutional stupor only to vote ``no'' on our War Powers Resolution, which every self-respecting Member of the Article I branch should have voted for.

The administration reports that the first 6 days of this war cost the taxpayers $11.3 billion, or $1.9 billion a day.

Have Republicans come to the floor to explain why this war was necessary or to offer evidence of an imminent threat posed to the American people?

Have they asked for a special Iran war tax to demonstrate their fiscal responsibility?

No. They just put Trump's little excursion, as he calls it, on the national credit card like an impulse trip to Disney World.

But our constituents are paying through the nose for this historic folly right now, not just as taxpayers but as consumers. We have already been buffeted by Donald Trump's illegal tariffs and imbecilic trade wars against the rest of the world and the soaring cost of living under his corrupt economic policies. Now, we also have to contend with skyrocketing gasoline prices thanks to their foolish disruption of the global oil supply. Gas prices have shot up more than 25 percent since the lawless mullah theocrats of Iran shut down the Strait of Hormuz after the lawless MAGA theocrats of America bombed Iran.

Now, our Republican colleagues present a doomed proposal to deface our Constitution with the same kind of witless, self-incriminating graffiti someone recently scrawled on the exterior front wall of the Kennedy Center, which they call the Trump-Kennedy Center.

This proposed constitutional amendment pretends to address a problem that the Republicans created and that Republicans have refused to address legislatively, even though they have all the political control and all the legislative tools they need at their disposal to address it.

We don't need a balanced budget constitutional amendment. We just need a balanced budget. If you believe in a balanced budget, bring us one. Show it to us. You control the Congress. But don't start a fiscal wildfire with your out-of-control spending and then throw the Constitution into the flames, too.

If this proposed amendment were in effect today, the GOP-controlled Congress would be forced to pay for Trump's war by further cutting critical programs for America's working families.

If we gain the majority and try to repeal the trillion-dollar tax cut that they handed to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, we would have to get a two-thirds vote in the House and a two-thirds vote in the Senate in order to engage in an act of fiscal responsibility. But if they wanted to pass another trillion-dollar tax cut for Elon Musk and the richest Americans, they would only need to get a majority vote in the House and the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, even Republicans are denouncing the gigantic, runaway deficits that result from out-of-control Republican spending and stupendously reckless Republican tax cuts for billionaires and giant corporations.

One of our GOP colleagues, Representative Chip Roy, described their One Big Beautiful Bill Act as garbage prior to the House vote, saying: ``If we're going to do the tax policy, at least do the spending policy. Have the courage and the fortitude to do what you campaign on when you're talking about balancing the dang budget.''

Representative Roy's outrage makes sense. Republicans control the House. They control the Senate, and they control the White House. Yet they have not once balanced the Federal budget or even tried to present a balanced budget to Congress.

Their obscene, ugly, profligate law added a jaw-dropping $4 trillion to the national debt because of their massive giveaways to billionaires and corporations, which is the true political mission on their side of the aisle.

They paid for a fraction of their profligacy by stripping health insurance and food assistance from tens of millions of working-class Americans who are now living with these Marie Antoinette policies concocted by billionaires and cyber barons throwing Great Gatsby parties at Mar-a-Lago and bulldozing the White House to build themselves one more gilded ballroom.

Now, rather than showing some discipline and hard work and reversing some of their terrible fiscal blunders from the past to propose an actual balanced budget, no, they waste their time to keep the party going by inviting us to spend the day finger painting on the Constitution of the United States.

To observe the semiquincentennial of the country, they want us to use our Constitution to make them do what they claim they want to do but refuse to do at a time when they possess all the power they need to do it.

With the same foresight and expert planning, the White House has used in their chaotic, forever war in Iran, they will put our government into a fiscal straitjacket forever to cover up for their gilded incompetence and misplaced priorities.

It would mean, for example, that a responsible leader, like Franklin D. Roosevelt or Bill Clinton, would no longer have the flexibility to deal with economic crises created by Republicans like Herbert Hoover or Calvin Coolidge or George W. Bush.

The simple truth is that we don't need a constitutional amendment to balance the budget or have responsible fiscal policies.

They have got one-party control of every branch of government. They have never stopped talking about balanced budgets.

Why don't they just bring us one? That is all we need to do.

However, billionaire rip-off artists like Elon Musk or Peter Thiel don't get rich off balanced budgets. They get rich when the GOP opens the spigots of taxpayer money in Federal Government contracts and giveaways for billionaires and the high-flying, rent-seeking corporate class.

Republicans have run up historic corrupt deficits in this Congress and have never once submitted a single balanced budget. We don't need a constitutional amendment to force the majority to do the right thing. We need a new majority. Republicans may as well introduce a constitutional amendment saying that Federal agents shouldn't shoot American citizens in the face for exercising their First or Second Amendment rights, or a constitutional amendment saying Federal agents shouldn't shoot someone 10 times for lawfully carrying a firearm in Minneapolis.

Mr. Speaker, you don't need a constitutional amendment to respect the law, and you don't need a constitutional amendment to do the right thing for the American people. You just need a new majority, and, Mr. Speaker, it is coming.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this foolish diversionary legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the gentleman from Arizona has conceded that the last time we had a balanced budget was under President Bill Clinton, the elected Democratic President for two terms who turned over a surplus of hundreds of billions of dollars to his successor in office. Compare that to President Trump who has been President for a total of around 5\1/2\ years and has added one-quarter of the national debt from George Washington all the way to today. One-quarter of that has come from Donald Trump himself. Mr. Speaker, look not at what they say but at what they do. That is because it is the Democrats who have always been the party of fiscal responsibility. Like they are doing in their Iran war right now, they are spending us into oblivion without even coming to Congress to get the war declared. It is unauthorized-- much less telling us how they are going to pay for it other than putting it on a credit card for our children and our children's children to pay for many generations into the future.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

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

Yes, it is unchecked Federal spending by President Trump, who is spending up to $2 billion a day on an undeclared, unauthorized, and unconstitutional war in Iran.

Our colleagues won't utter a peep about it, and they won't bring us a balanced budget, but they will bring us a balanced budget constitutional amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that refreshing intervention in the debate, but I think, as the President Clinton example demonstrates, we can have and we have had the political will at different points to balance the budget.

It is not politically impossible, but it does start with some people taking some courageous votes.

For example, let's vote on whether or not we should be at war in Iran, costing the American people $1 billion to $2 billion a day. If you can't even have the courage to decide that we will exercise our warmaking powers and our power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, and our spending power to do it, then nothing will save you, I am sorry.

You can pass a constitutional amendment saying don't shoot people in the face, but still, you have to tell ICE not to shoot people in the face. You have to demonstrate your commitment to actually making that policy real.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a very distinguished legislator.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished former majority leader of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am charmed by the story that the gentleman from Pennsylvania just told us about having gone to the White House to talk to the President and telling the President he is spending too much. I am just recording the story as it was presented to us.

He said to the President: You are spending too much.

That is the understatement of the 21st century. He is spending $1 billion to $2 billion a day on an undeclared, unauthorized, unconstitutional war in Iran. He has given us one-quarter of all the debt that has been created in the United States from George Washington until today. That is under the Trump administration.

The gentleman represents that he spoke to the President and said: You are spending too much.

The President's response was: I know we are, but I can't get them to stop spending more.

Who is ``them''? Was that an implied critique of the Democrats? They control the House. They control the Senate. They control the White House. Who is President Trump in that vignette referring to? Is he referring to the Republicans? He must be because they are the ones who are controlling the Chamber, as they are proud to tell us. At least until the end of this year, they are the ones doing it.

If Republicans think they support a balanced budget amendment, why don't they start with a balanced budget? Just bring us one balanced budget. That is all that we need from them.

Mr. Speaker, they have taken what is a math problem and tried to turn it into a constitutional problem. Every family in America knows they have got to make their expenses come within their means and within their resources. Every family does that. Republicans don't want to do that. They want to turn what is a simple math problem or an economic problem into a constitutional problem.

To celebrate America's semiquincentennial, 250th anniversary, for the first time they want to say that what we need to do is to amend our Constitution to make us do what we want to do but we can't do. We don't have the will and political courage to do it.

It was offered by the majority itself. We have got the will on our side to do it. President Clinton did it, and we will fight to try to make our resources match up with our expenses.

We have already heard that their side of the aisle is looking for a military budget of $1.5 trillion for next year. They are looking for $1.5 trillion for the war budget, for Secretary of War Hegseth. They want $1.5 trillion. That is where they are headed: endless wars in the Middle East, undeclared wars of choice, wars of aggression, not authorized by Congress.

None of them will even utter a peep about it today. That is where we are hemorrhaging money in America. Instead, they want to talk about a hypothetical pie-in-the-sky constitutional amendment that no other generation of Americans has ever needed before in order to do the right thing.

What is their loyalty and fidelity to the Constitution? Let's say they got their amendment. Right now, Article I, Section 8 says that Congress must declare war. It is not the President, not Donald Trump, not JD Vance, not Tulsi Gabbard, or somebody in their chat group. Congress must declare war.

What do they do? They do nothing. They just let the President go ahead and enter into his wars of whim and caprice, vanity, conceit, imperial ambition, whatever. They do nothing. They won't even have a vote to support it or oppose it. They won't have an honest debate about it.

That is the war power, which Madison said was one of the essential powers Congress must have, because the kings were always plunging their countries into wars of conceit and vanity, imperial plunder and corruption. So it had to be vested in the Representatives of the people, but they won't follow that.

Mr. Speaker, how about the spending power? Exclusively Congress has the power to spend money. It has to arise here in the House of Representatives. We have the power to spend, and we have the power to tax. The administration has been struck down dozens of times for abusing our spending power, and they won't say a word about it.

What about the taxing power? Donald Trump became the first President in American history to unilaterally impose tariffs, which is a huge tax on our people. It is not on other countries and not on China. It is on us. We told him it was unconstitutional. They wouldn't do anything, with the exception of Representative Massie from Kentucky, who is the conscience of the Republican Conference--although I don't mean to damn him with faint praise--maybe a handful of others opposed the tariffs. They all went along for the ride, even though we have the power to impose tariffs. It has always been Congress that has established the framework for tariffs, not the President. We can't make it up as we go along, but that is what he did.

Of course, he was struck down even by the Supreme Court that has been sliced and diced and gerrymandered to his advantage. Even that Supreme Court struck it down on a 6-3 vote, but we hear nothing from our colleagues about it.

What about the First Amendment? There shall be no law abridging the freedom of speech. Yet, this is the most anti-free speech administration the United States has ever seen. Donald Trump's chairman of the FCC the other day said that broadcast licensees, television stations, better watch out what they say about the war.

I can't think of a more naked violation of the First Amendment than the government threatening to revoke broadcast licenses of media entities who disagree with the President's policy, especially about something as important to the American people as war.

They don't utter a single word about it. That is their demonstrated fidelity to the Constitution. They are now saying: Yes, we are not balancing the budget. We haven't presented a single balanced budget. If we are made to do it through the Constitution, we will follow the Constitution.

Fool me once, well, blame on you. Fool me twice, blame on me. We are not falling for that.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Arizona for a spirited discussion of this important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I will take the example offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) of President Clinton. We could take many historical episodes, but we have time only for one.

President Clinton was determined to balance the budget, and he returned hundreds of billions of dollars in a surplus to his successor in office. He worked with the Republican-controlled Congress and led them along to eliminate the deficit.

The government ran a huge surplus without the aid of a contrived balanced budget constitutional amendment. Clinton bequeathed to his successor, George W. Bush, famously a budget surplus of $236 billion, which Bush and the GOP Congress quickly squandered on tax cuts for the richest people in the country and then the staggeringly costly forever wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

Mr. Speaker, what do you know? History repeats itself. If it doesn't repeat itself exactly, it certainly rhymes. What do we have now? They have added $4 trillion to our debt with their massive giveaways to the richest people in the country and the richest corporations.

What are we in now despite all of Donald Trump's campaign promises? We are in another undeclared, unauthorized, forever war of regime change, although it is not really a regime change war because the President obviously doesn't care about democracy or human rights in Iran any more than he cares about democracy or human rights in America. In any event, we are there. We are in that war, spending $1 billion to $2 billion a day.

What do our colleagues do to try to deal with this fiscal catastrophe? They offer a balanced budget constitutional amendment, saying this is a bipartisan problem we are in. It is a pox on everybody's house. Let's just amend the Constitution to make us do what we really want to do but we can't do because we don't have the political resolve and the courage to do it.

At the same time, they don't have the political resolve and courage to exercise Congress' powers over war. They don't have the resolve and courage to exercise Congress' power over spending or over taxes or over our ability to regulate commerce domestically or nationally. They have given it all away to the President of the United States, when we are the Article I branch. We have the power. We can do it if we are willing to exercise it.

What is the President's power? It is very simple: to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.

If we pass a balanced budget, the President will have to remain within it. If we are going to say that we are going to have a debate about that war, that he can't just run off to war and start plundering the public fisc and spending billions of dollars of the people's money, he can't do it. Yet, our colleagues in the majority will not exercise any kind of discipline or institutional self-respect.

Mr. Speaker, the Framers of the Constitution thought that people in Congress would stand up for congressional power, just like the President would stand up for Presidential power and would always try to aggrandize the power of the executive branch, and the Supreme Court would stand up for the power of judicial review and what the courts do.

Yet, they thought that, as Madison put it in Federalist 10, ambition would counteract ambition. We would stand up for ourselves.

Our colleagues in the majority will not stand up for congressional powers under the Constitution of the United States, so they want to finger paint some more on the Constitution by adding their balanced budget constitutional amendment.

We don't need a balanced budget constitutional amendment, which will be a fiscal straitjacket in times like COVID-19 or times of war, where Congress needs the flexibility. All we need is for the majority to bring us a balanced budget, show some fiscal discipline, and show some fiscal resolve. Then, we can take it seriously.

Otherwise, it just seems like a massive, fantastical distraction from what is actually taking place in America today and on Earth, which is we have a President who is bulldozing everything from the White House itself to the Bill of Rights to the separation of powers.

What do we have on the other side of the aisle? It is nothing but legislative

accomplices in all of this fiscal and constitutional irresponsibility. They want to take a simple math problem and displace everybody's attention by trying to turn it into a constitutional issue.

Mr. Speaker, that wasn't the handiwork of James Madison. That wasn't the handiwork of Alexander Hamilton, who took balanced budgets very seriously. They didn't think that America needed it.

If the political leadership is not rising to the task, then we need new political leadership. If this congressional majority can't do it, let's elect a new congressional majority, but let's not throw the Constitution into the fire with all of the other constitutional principles that have been set ablaze by this administration.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1115 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 1115, providing for the House's consideration of H.R. 556, H.R. 1958, and H.R. 4638.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 556, the Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 1958, the Deporting Fraudsters Act of 2026, and H.R. 4638, the Federal Working Animal Protection Act, both under closed rules. The rule provides each 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit for each bill.

Additionally, when considered under suspension of the rules, the rule provides additional debate time to 1 hour of general debate for H.J. Res. 139, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring a balanced budget for the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, the three measures that underpin this rule all share a singular, defining characteristic: They are in alignment with the priorities and demands of the American people.

What do the American people want, Mr. Speaker? I will tell you what they want. They want a restoration of law and order so that illegal aliens are deported, especially when they are convicted of having committed criminal acts.

Republicans are answering that demand by putting forth H.R. 1958 and H.R. 4638. These two pieces of legislation zero in on criminal aliens who have defrauded the government and criminal aliens who commit violent acts against law enforcement working animals in the line of duty.

Mr. Speaker, when I say that we back the blue, I am talking about the men and women of law enforcement and the trained animals that stand alongside them in the line of duty.

Those who choose to oppose this legislation, I can guarantee, are members of the same party that has voted to keep the Department of Homeland Security shut down and has voted in the past to defund the police. You and I both know, Mr. Speaker, which party it is that I am referring to here. It is obvious.

Americans want a Federal Government that respects consumer choice and the exercising of our freedoms, not a Federal Government that seeks to regulate every single aspect of our lives. That is why Republicans are putting forth H.R. 556, which would tear down regulations that have dictated how men and women across the Nation can hunt and fish on select pieces of land under the control of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, respectively.

These are two essential parts of life that Americans are incredibly fortunate to engage in and enjoy. I believe all should respect that, but the Federal Government, under Democratic control, has time and again viewed these activities as nothing more than a target to overregulate. Is anyone surprised by this? I don't believe so.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will guarantee that our colleagues across the aisle won't spend their time debating this slate of bills with us today. I would be pleasantly surprised if they actually chose to do that. Instead, they will do the same thing they always do: stomp their feet, huff and puff, and yell about unrelated things until they are blue in the face. It is like muscle memory for them at this point.

Meanwhile, Republicans will be focused on the task at hand, like they always are. They stand ready to deliver, and they intend to do so, yet again, with these three pieces of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his kind comments. I send them back to him and wish him a happy St. Patrick's Day. I appreciate him making my prediction in my opening remarks come true.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McDowell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am a huge animal rights lover too, and I have a dog I say that owns me.

My colleague just talked about one example that worked out well, but we know lots and lots of examples where these things don't work out well, and that is why we need this legislation. It is because acts of cruelty toward animals who are working often fall between the cracks.

My colleague also just said that no one will see any benefits from the Working Families Tax Cut, yet thanks to this important legislation, Americans could receive nearly a $4,000-tax refund this year. The average take-home pay boost is $10,900, and the average tax cut for middle-income Americans is 15 percent.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Taylor).

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

Madam Speaker, I will point out to my colleague that, yes, gas jumped in the last month, but it is still a lot less expensive than it was under President Biden.

Thankfully, under President Trump, gas prices were cut almost in half. The number one role of the Federal Government, Madam Speaker, as we all know on our side of the aisle, is defense of this Nation.

Madam Speaker, the need for legislation like H.R. 1958 is not hypothetical. Fraud is a serious crime, and it is essential we ensure foreign national fraudsters cannot continue to exploit the American taxpayers.

While my colleagues will argue that there is no fraud currently, here are just a few recent examples: ``A 3-year-old girl's Social Security number had been used for `two credit cards and two auto loans, with an outstanding balance of more than $25,000.''

The second example is: ``Fraud by illegal immigrants destroying children's

lives.'' These are quotes, Madam Speaker. Including the life of: ``A 9- year-old boy who was denied Medicaid because wages were reported on his Social Security number. A 13-year-old girl who was denied as a dependent on her family's tax return because she supposedly made too much money.''

These are because illegal aliens are stealing Social Security numbers and using them.

In 2019, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Mississippi announced the prosecution of 119 illegal aliens for crimes, including ``misusing Social Security numbers of American citizens.''

I have the sources for all of these, Madam Speaker.

In June 2020, the Justice Department announced that an illegal alien from Guatemala was sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment for ``[using] another person's Social Security number to get a job and for tax purposes.''

In October 2023, an illegal alien who was arrested by the U.S. Border Patrol near Hidalgo, Texas, in September 2022 and then released by the Biden administration, pleaded guilty to illegal use of a Social Security number.

In November 2025, The New York Times highlighted the case of Daniel Kluver, a Minnesota man whose identity was stolen by a Guatemalan illegal alien with a criminal history and multiple deportations. Because of the identity theft, Kluver lost thousands of dollars through garnished wages and increased taxes. He spent years unsuccessfully trying to untangle the mystery of his stolen identity.

The stories go on and on, Madam Speaker, so there is a real reason for this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

First, let me say, we know what the role of the Federal Government is. It is outlined in the Constitution of the United States. Many of the things that my colleague wants us to be involved in--and we have been involved in--are the things that have caused us to have a $38 trillion debt at the Federal level, and so doing everything that we can to reduce fraud is really very important.

Let me say, if we have people who are here legally, as Americans have done for Americans, we will do for them. But those who come here illegally--and the term is illegal alien--then we do not have any truck with them. We want them to obey the law, just like we want everybody else to obey the law.

If they commit fraud, then we want them gone, out of this country. They shouldn't be here to begin with because they come in illegally.

If we want to address the high cost of living in this country, we must confront fraud. We must confront fraud. Democrats should be joining us, not opposing the commonsense effort.

Let's talk about the rhetoric from our colleagues on our record of fiscal soundness this Congress and the Democrats' record of spending addiction. We just finished the FY26 appropriations package--of course, minus the funding for Homeland Security. We saved nearly $14 billion compared to last year's appropriated levels. Let's not forget that comes on the heels of cutting $9 billion of waste and fraud through a rescissions package just months earlier, and that came on the heels of cutting $1.4 trillion of waste, fraud, and abuse through Republicans' reconciliation effort.

Democrats are lying in wait to vote for higher taxes on working families yet again if they have the opportunity. What they don't understand is that the government doesn't have a tax flow problem. We have a fundamental spending problem in Washington. Again, that spending is not on what the Federal Government should be spending it on, which is the defense of this Nation, but is on spending on things that are not outlined in the Constitution for us to be doing.

When Democrats had full control of the levers of power and passed their reconciliation packages, they expanded the Federal Government with an unprecedented $11 trillion in spending. Yes, Madam Speaker, I said $11 trillion in additional spending, $6 trillion of which has been added to the national debt.

There is simply no comparison between what Republicans have accomplished this Congress and the Democrats' spending addiction. We have lowered the deficit. We have cut trillions in waste. We have secured tax relief for working families. Democrats opposed us on every front.

Guess what. Our deficit is finally being addressed. The Federal Government's cumulative deficit for fiscal year 2026 at the end of November was 19 percent lower than the year prior under Biden.

Be it by reconciliation, rescission, or through the regular-order annual appropriations process, this Congress is cutting spending, driving down inflation, and returning money to taxpayers.

Madam Speaker, that is really the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans. We believe that the public should hold on to as much of its money as possible, not turn that money over to bureaucrats to spend.

Don't buy the empty rhetoric of congressional Democrats. They ran on affordability in the Commonwealth of

Virginia, but just recently, they slapped on a regressive payroll tax that will squeeze billions out of workers' paychecks.

Congressional Democrats are on record voting against tax relief for tipped workers, Social Security recipients, working moms, and the working class when they voted against the Working Families Tax Cut Act.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, this is not a serious proposal.

Madam Speaker, it is really rich. Now, it is the fault of Republicans that the Department of Homeland Security is not funded. It is just too rich.

Crime is down in this country because we have shut down our border and denied people coming in illegally.

Madam Speaker, we need to fund all of Homeland Security so that we can keep the border closed. Obviously, our colleagues want to open the border again just like President Biden did. There were people waiting at the border when President Biden was elected

with shirts on that said: Thank you, Biden. We can't do that. We need to fund all of Homeland Security at the same time.

By the way, Madam Speaker, it was the Bipartisan Policy Center that said that the 19 percent reduction in deficit had occurred.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues across the aisle said that they want to keep the border closed. If they are serious about keeping the border closed and safe, then how are they going to do it without funding border patrol and they don't want to fund border patrol?

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues across the aisle have spent their time during this debate drawing caricatures, weaving a tapestry of tangential statements, and engaging in theatrics. This is unserious behavior, Mr. Speaker.

Might I remind them we are here debating substantive legislation that aligns with the priorities of the American people. Our colleagues across the aisle are welcome to join us in supporting them, standing for law and order, and returning freedom and choice back to the custody of the American people where they belong.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

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. 139) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring a balanced budget for the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.J. Res. 139.

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

Mr. Speaker, today our national debt exceeds $38 trillion and grows second by second. On a per-person basis, the national debt amounts to $113,000 for every person living in the United States.

For generations, Congress has chosen to max out our national credit card and leave the bill to the next generation instead of having hard conversations about spending.

Families across our Nation have had these hard conversations, and they balance their budgets. The leaders of this Nation should do the same.

Americans know that debt comes with strings attached. Every dollar we spend beyond our means today is a dollar and change we must repay tomorrow. It is no different for government. The more America borrows, the more expensive every next borrowed dollar becomes.

Indeed, annual Federal spending on interest is now one of the largest line items we have. We spend more on interest than we do on Medicare. We spend more on interest than we do on national defense.

Republicans and Democrats may have different policy ideas and priorities, but surely we can all agree that a budget hamstrung by huge interest payments benefits nobody.

Our fiscal trajectory is alarming and unsustainable. Higher-than- expected interest rates or other challenges could trigger a debt spiral. It has happened to other countries throughout history.

Without changes, it will happen to us. The day of reckoning will come, and it will not be big and beautiful. It will be big and ugly.

There are two choices: spend a lot less on the future or spend a little less starting today. I choose the second option. That is why I support the balanced budget amendment. It is the only way to cement our commitment to long-term fiscal stability.

A 5-year path to balance will allow us to make prudent spending choices to gradually balance the budget and wean us from our reliance on deficit spending.

It is simple. The balanced budget amendment will restore fiscal sanity and take us off the path to an economic calamity.

But the balanced budget amendment will not merely beat back a future fiscal crisis. It will also reduce the cost of living here and now. The enormous Federal debt is currently driving up borrowing costs for all Americans. Mortgages, car payments, and student loans are all more expensive because of Congress' profligacy and irresponsibility.

We saw the disastrous effects of budget-busting deficit spending during the catastrophic 4 years of Biden-Harris rule. With the eager support of Democrats in Congress, the Biden-Harris administration approved $4.7 trillion in new deficit spending, ultimately racking up $8.5 trillion in new debt.

What did the average American get? The worst inflation in 40 years.

When Biden-Harris took over in January of 2021, inflation was just at 1.4 percent per annum. By the middle of the term, it exceeded 9 percent per annum.

Inflation is a tax on everyone, but we all know who it hurts the most: the poor, the working class, seniors on fixed incomes, and American families, who saw their expenses explode and their salaries stay flat.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, histrionics and misdirection won't cover the historical hypocrisy of the reckless spending of Democrats who now even choose to keep parts of the government shut down.

Under the Biden administration, the national debt grew by an unprecedented--unprecedented--$8.5 trillion.

By the way, this used to be a bipartisan issue. When the gentleman mentioned Bill Clinton, I think: Yeah, that is the last time everybody came together from both parties that actually produced a balanced budget.

The gentleman asks: Well, why don't Republicans do it now?

It is because we would like to invite the other side to do it with us. We would like to invite the other side to do it with us, but they don't want to do it with us.

In fact, the gentleman just basically announced that he would like to repeal the tax act and give us the largest tax increase in national history.

What did we get from the runaway spending of Joe Biden?

When Biden-Harris took over in January, inflation was at 1.4 percent. By the middle of the term it was over 9 percent. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act will reduce debt to GDP, flip primary deficits into surpluses by 2034, and reduce the deficit by about $4.5 trillion relative to the policy baseline prior to enactment, all of this while averting the largest tax hike in American history that my colleague across the aisle basically just announced they are going to enact upon the American people if they become the majority.

Democrats have proposed radical bills that far exceed the alleged cost of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Let us see what they have done. The Green New Deal will cost $93 trillion over 10 years. That is theirs. Their Medicare for All proposal will cost $32 trillion over 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, forgive me if I think they are projecting a bit on this one here. The simple truth is a balanced budget amendment would hold both parties accountable.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Harris).

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

Mr. Speaker, I find that the argument that is presented by the gentleman from Maryland seems delusional at best--delusional at best.

This amendment doesn't target programs. It targets overspending. Congress must live within the revenue Americans already provide, and that is about $5.5 trillion a year. The two-thirds threshold applies to tax hikes, not program cuts. Receipts have been stable for decades. Spending is what is out of control. Spending is what is out of control, and they fail to acknowledge it.

What is delusional is for the Democrats to have the audacity to say that they are the party of fiscal responsibility when they are trying to impose the Green New Deal, $93 trillion over 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, during the gentleman from Texas' recent comments, so recently given, the national debt rose by $125,000. Just keep that in mind.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington), my friend and chairman of the Budget Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will set the record straight on that history. It was very colorful but a little bit inaccurate. If you remember, it was the '96 budget that was balanced. It was balanced with all the Republicans and a plurality of Democrats. It would have been nice if it would have been unanimous, wouldn't it? It would have been nice, but we couldn't get there.

Perhaps all the rhetoric you have heard today is political partisanship. It is posturing from that side of the aisle over there and maybe some from us because it is a bipartisan problem.

I think the previous speaker just said what are the odds of us ever just doing it on our own. That is right. Hell froze over once about 30 years ago. Are we going to wait 30 years again until the structural deficit exceeds $5 trillion a year when we actually have a national debt that is somewhere north of $100 trillion?

We are not going to last that long. We need to do this now.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Onder), my friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I think in one sense he is right on the money. Both parties can share in the blame of this massive, structural national debt we have, but I will point out that in 2001 when taxes were cut, something happened in 2001 which changed the trajectory of the entire Nation, and we are still dealing with the fallout.

You will remember it. We called that 9/11, right? Some things happened in 2001, which changed our spending. That is important to recall.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), my friend.

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

Madam Speaker, hyperbole and sophistry right here on the floor of the House from politicians, who would have thunk it? Really, who would have thunk it? I get a big kick out of that.

Do you know what the national debt was when Barack Obama became President? It was $8 trillion. Do you know what it was when he left? It was $20 trillion.

Do you know what the gentleman from Maryland did? He defended every wild-eyed, anticonstitutional program and every abuse of the First Amendment under the Biden administration. When you had reporters being castigated, investigated, and prosecuted, not a peep from him. Not a peep, but, boy golly, he is going to come up here and attack President Trump. That is what he is going to do, and then he has the audacity to talk about abasement--abasement of this body, and to say that we have absolute control over all three bodies.

I wish we did. That would mean that we had 60 Republican Senators in the Senate. Quite frankly, I have a major problem with that because that is a supermajoritarian body under the cloture rule. That wasn't contemplated by the Founders either. They thought it would be a simple majority.

The rationale for his argument is that James Madison and Alexander Hamilton wouldn't have said it, but do you know what? James Madison and Alexander Hamilton would have said that we are not going to have direct elections of Senators. They are going to be elected by their State legislature.

That rationale doesn't make sense in this argument. It is specious and weak. That is the rationale that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are throwing at us today.

The gentleman said that we have never needed a balanced budget amendment before. Perhaps he is correct, but we sure have a massive structural deficit today. We have a structural deficit because, even though we bring in a record amount--a record amount--of revenue, we keep spending more. This body doesn't have the political will.

That is the point that our side has been making. We don't have the political will, not on our side or the minority's side. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to turn this constantly into a partisan affair. I am saying that both sides have recklessly spent too much--both sides.

Madam Speaker, do you know who is punished by it? It is not us. It is not us. It is the American people. It is the American people who are taking the burden of feckless, blind spending and reckless spending.

Even if you get the record amount of revenue, this body is not going to make a concomitant amount of spending. It is going to spend more. It will always spend more. We will always spend more. Only if we have a balanced budget amendment, which, by the way, used to be a bipartisan issue.

It used to be a bipartisan issue on the national debt and deficit. Both parties' national security leaders used to say that that is our number one security threat. I mean for 25 years, a generation or more.

Madam Speaker, we don't hear that today from my colleagues. It is too bad. I wish we did. Man, I wish we did. I wish we could both say: Let's put this together. It is delusional. It is delusional. The fact of the matter is that what was spent during COVID--massive amounts, literally trillions of dollars--without any productive capacity to go with it fueled the Biden-era inflation, and we are dealing with that today.

Oddly enough, the inflation rate under President Trump is back down to almost what it was when he left. That is the reality.

How about my Democratic colleagues saying that we are going to put in the Green New Deal program. Remember that one? Yes. It was $93 trillion worth of spending with no pay-for over a 10-year period. It was $93 trillion.

Medicare for all, $33 trillion over a 10-year period, no pay-for.

Madam Speaker, do you know what the pay-for is? We are going to print more money. We are going to print more money, and do you know what that does? It devalues your currency. By the way, the valuation of currency is the classic definition of ``inflation'' because you can't buy as much with the same dollar. You are always going to need more.

People think that we have seen hyperinflation. We haven't seen hyperinflation. Do you know when we are going to see hyperinflation? We are going to see hyperinflation when the bond markets start saying: Guess what. You guys are effectively bankrupt, and we are not lending you any more money.

That is when the big calamity hits. When that hits, there won't be anybody here who can say that this is a partisan issue. Both parties will be at fault.

I pray to God that both sides here today will vote for this amendment. Get it to the people. Let the people actually impose upon us what 49 States have, and that is a requirement for a balanced budget. If we couldn't print our own money, we would have already collapsed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and classmate from Arizona for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, let's pause for a brief moment of intellectual honesty. Both parties have failed. This institution has failed. We have failed our country.

We have jeopardized our economy, our security, and our leadership in the world. Worst of all, we have compromised on our children's future and the blessing of their inheritance of freedom and opportunity.

We have failed. That is why we are talking about a constitutional amendment to impose fiscal responsibility on a body politic that has not done that, that has not mustered the political will to do that.

We have a national debt per GDP that exceeds World War II levels of debt, an annual deficit that is larger than both the defense and nondefense discretionary budgets, with 50 cents or greater on every dollar that we borrow up to $2 trillion going to service our interest payments.

Half of what we borrow, a trillion dollars, is more than what we spend on defense. Then, there is this ominous forecast by CBO that even at $39 trillion today, where we are teetering on a potential sovereign debt crisis, we will add $180 trillion to the national debt in the 30- year out. If that is not unacceptable to everybody, I don't know what is.

If we can't concede to the fact that this body politic does not have the political will to address it, to rein in the spending that is driving this unsustainable debt trajectory that will bankrupt our country and our children's future, then we must support this forcing mechanism. Force us to do what the American people have to do. Force us to do what State and local governments do.

Here is another stunning, and startling for some, but for all a sobering fact: We won't even get a simple majority vote today.

What shall we do? We should look to Article V of the Constitution, where the sovereign States and we the people can petition their government for another path to amend the Constitution. Guess what. They have done that.

Mr. Speaker, they had the requisite applications to have an Article V convention of the States, to rein in us, the knuckleheads that refuse to accept that it is not a Democratic problem or a Republican problem. It is an institutional problem that persists and will destroy the greatest Nation in human history.

Let's look to the States, and let's call that convention like we should have done in the 1970s and 1980s. Let's let them rein us in, restore fiscal sanity in their Nation's Capital, and reverse the curse that looms large over this country.