way to force congress to balance a budget. we know that's not true because we balanced the budget under president clinton. we turned in four balanced budgets and ran a surplus. in fact, in 2001, alan greenspan, testifying in favor of president bush's proposed tax cuts, said we had to reduce taxes because we were going to eliminate, pay down the entire national debt in 10 years and that would be a bad thing, he thought, for various reasons. that was the danger, we pay down but president bush and the republican congress turned that record surplus into record deficits in record time. they did it with two huge tax cuts, two unfunded wars, a prescription drug benefit that wasn't paid for and the rejection of the democratic congress' pay-as-you-go rule. it was all done off the books. and i heard that it was wild spending by the obama administration that's brought about our $15 trillion national debt. well, the truth of the matter is, if you look at nondefense

discretionary spending, everything we do other than defense and social security and medicare and veterans' benefits and interest on the debt, adjusted for population and inflation, it hasn't gone up by a nickel since 2001. defaulting is an irresponsible republican president and an irresponsible republican congress. many of those same republican members who sat quietly when vice president cheney said that deficits don't matter now demand this assault on our founding document instead of doing this through sound fiscal policy. we should not wreck the economy. i urge a no vote and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee of rules for filing under the rule cloifment report to accompany house

resolution 470, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 3094, to amend the national labor relations act with respect to representation hearings and the timing of elections of labor organizations under that act. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. smith: i yield myself 15 second. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i just want to say to the gentleman from michigan who spoke earlier that i agree with him. today is not 1995. in fact, the deficit is worse. since 1995 the deficit has tripled. it's gone from $5 trillion to $15 trillion which is all the more reason to support this balanced budget amendment to the constitution. mr. speaker, i yield five minutes to my friend and colleague from virginia, mr. goodlatte, who is the sponsor of this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. mr. goodlatte: i thank the chairman for yielding.

mr. speaker, this chart tells the story. we have had a number of opportunities over the years to pass balanced budget amendments to the united states of the constitution. it's not my idea. it's not a new idea. but as we've gone through time we've managed debt. now, as the chairman just noted, in the last 15 years the debt has tripled. but looking ahead, this chart, which shows the ratio of our debt to our gross domestic product and shows that by 2080 it will be nine times, nine times the total economic output of our economy. indicates that what some on the other side have said simply is not the case. congress has not made the tough decisions. we have overpromised the american people, and the fact of the matter is now we need to have something in the constitution that the american

people expect and demand of us. and that is a balanced budget amendment. now, we have lots of different balanced budget amendments proposed in this congress. i think 18 i have seen of them thus far. and some ask for more stringent requirements, which i very much like. limiting the ability to balance this budget by putting a heavier burden on the american people through taxes. capping the amount of money that we spend. certainly something that i also think we need to be cognizant of. others have said, let's take certain things off the table like social security or capital spending or disaster spending. this balanced budget amendment, which passed this house with 300 votes, including 72 democrats, strikes the right balance. it enshrines in our constitution the principle that we should live within our means. but gives future congresses the flexibility to in times of

national emergency have some years that are not balanced. that i think is a reality that we have to deal with. but the fact of the matter is that in the last 50 years, since 1961, this congress has balanced the budget of this nation six times in 50 years. it should be the other way around. there are srnl six years in those 50 that were crises which you might say we should not balance the budget this year. but when the gentleman from new york says that in good times we should pay down the debt and in tough times we should borrow, that has not been what has happened because most of those 50 years have been good times. now, there's another important point to make here. any amendment to the united states constitution has to by its very nature be bipartisan. it requires a 2/3 majority. and many of my friends on the

other side of the aisle have worked very hard to build support on their side of the aisle for this. i especially want to thank peter defazio and jim cooper, but many members, the blue dogs have endorsed this balanced budget amendment. but it is necessary to have a bipartisan approach to this. and you know what? this is a bipartisan problem. there have been republican presidents and democratic presidents, republican congresses and democratic congresses that have contributed to those 44 years when we've run deficits. so now today we come and ask for a bipartisan solution to this problem, a solution that depending upon the poll 75% to 80% of the american people support. congress continues to prove it cannot make the tough decisions on its own. the budget has only been balanced six times in 50 years. the american people know what it means to balance their budget. they are surprised that the congress does not have this requirement.

state governments do. 49 out of 50 states, most of which have it in their constitutions. local governments have to balance their budgets. families and businesses have to live within their means and they can't go more than a few years without living within their means. . but to run up a $15 trillion debt, which divided by the population of our country means that the average person today owes more in debt based upon their share of the government's debt than they have in personal income, is a disgrace. -- income is a disgrace. this is not only something we should be imposing upon future congresses for economic reasons, this is also a moral issue. this is wrong to. borrow money year after year after year, over $1 trillion in each of the last three years, so that today the average dollar spent by the federal government, 42% of it, by far the largest

share, is borrowed against our children and grandchildren's future and where does that lead news is it leads us to where europe -- us? it leads us to where europe is. i thank the chairman. this chart shows government debt as a percentage of g.d.p. for five european countries and the united states. spain, portugal, ireland, itsly and greece. when greece first got into their problem last year, they were at 120% of g.d.p. that's what their debt totaled. already just over a year later it's 152% of g.d.p. because their economy is shrinking because of irresponsible -- irresponsibility on the part of their government. the united states just this week crossed the 100% line. the united states owes as much in debt as we have, the total economic output of this nation for one year. it is time to put a halt to this

and the best way to do it is to enshrine in our constitution a principle we all understand, we all live by, and that is you cannot live like this, you cannot live beyond your means year after year after year. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join this bipartisan effort to enshrine in our constitution a principle sought by the vast majority of the american people and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased at this time to recognize the minority leader of the house of representatives who ever since she has come to congress has worked drastically to save and build on medicare, social security and to create jobs. nancy pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the minority leader is recognized for one minute. pell pell i thank the gentleman -- ms. pelosi: i thank the gentleman for yielding and his kind words and his great leadership on all the issues that are important to america's working families.

mr. speaker, i came to the floor to talk about the balanced budget constitutional amendment but before i get into my comments specifically to the amendment, i want to acknowledge that the distinguished chairman of the committee, mr. smith, has talked about what the deficit was in 1995 and how much bigger it is now. and the distinguished maker of this amendment, resolution today, mr. goodlatte, said about the problem of having such a big national debt. recognizing those two facts, i want to speak about them. first of all, if this were just about talking about how we can reduce the deficit, the best way to do that is job creation. we know that. if we want to talk about what happened in the 1990's, we have to reference the fact that under president clinton the debt that was -- that he inherited, the

reagan-bush deficit that he inherited, he turned around and the last clinton budgets were in balance or were in surplus. he put us on a trajectory, he and the growth of jobs in our country in the public and largely in the private sector, took us to a path, a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. along comes president george w. bush and record record time he reversed that. it was the biggest turnaround, fiscal -- this is fiscal turnaround in our nation's history, taking us to over $5 -- a trajectory of over $5 trillion in deficit, an $11 trillion turnaround. two unpaid for wars, the c.b.o.'s, the congressional budget office, the nonpartisan congressional budget office, said that was because of two unpaid wars, the bush tax cut,

particularly at the high end, which did not create jobs, and a giveaway pharmaceutical bill to the pharmaceutical industry. those were the three main reasons for the big fiscal turnaround and how we got deeply in debt. i don't remember a lot of complaint coming from the republican side of the aisle while president bush was taking us down this path, as mr. goodlatte referenced two paths. well, this is one path that president bush took us down. and so now we have to deal with that. because the deficit is a concern to all of us. we believe that the best way to deal with that is what president clinton did, to have a great economic agenda, to generate jobs, and here we are, 320 days of the republican majority -- nearly 320 days of their majority, and they have taken no action on any serious job-creating bills.

here we go again debating legislation that will not create jobs, in fact, according to experts, enactment of this proposed amendment to our constitution would destroy 15 million jobs, dubblet unemployment rate -- double the unemployment rate, cause the economy to shrink by 17%. as bruce bartlett, a former economic advisor to president ronald reagan, and president george herbert walker bush, said , recently, even if we were not in an economic crisis and fighting two wars, a rapid cut in spending of the magnitude would unquestionably throw the economy into recession, just as it did in 1937. this legislation is an attack on our economy, it is an attack on our seniors. according to the nonpartisan center or budget and policy priorities, it could result in cuts over 10 years, of $750

billion to medicare and $1.2 trillion in cuts to social security. these cuts would be devastating to the 40 million seniors who rely on medicare and social security every day. they're even more draconian than the cuts in the republican budget which repeal the medicare guarantee. in just one week, just one week after our nation celebrated veterans day we are debating potentially cutting $85 billion over the next 10 years from veterans benefits. despite the claims of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this is not a clean, balanced -- they claim it is a clean, balanced budget amendment. it is not. because this proposed amendment to our constitution will require a supermajority in both chambers of congress to raise the debt

limit. it puts the full faith and credit of the united states of america in the hands of a minority. this after we went through all of the stress and strain and uncertainty and downgrading of our credit rating, when we couldn't even get a majority, and now we're thinking of a supermajority vote for the debt limit increase. again, that was never a requirement when president bush was president. that there be a supermajority to raise the debt limit. this amendment promotes further brinkmanship and uncertainty and enshrining supreme ideology into the constitution at a time when the americans have been very clear that they expect us to set differences aside and to get to work. it is our duty as members of congress, indeed we take the oath of office to be the elected guardians of our constitution.

to protect and defend it. to do no harm to our founding documents. yet if this proposed amendment is adopted, it will have far-reaching and adverse consequences. mr. speaker, as a democratic president, president clinton, who balanced the budget in the 1990's, five of his budgets were in balance or in surplus. we can do it again without harming our constitution, our economy, our seniors or our veterans. we must start by creating jobs and strengthening our economic growth, the key to reducing the deficit. it was interesting to me to hear others on the other side of the aisle talk about our children and our responsibility to them. that's what we said when president bush was amassing his deficit, i didn't hear anyone on or side of the aisle talking about that. this is about our constitution. so we owe it to the vision of our founders, the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform,

the aspirations of our children, to get our economic and fiscal house in order. this is the exact wrong way to do it. we must reignite the american dream and we have worked to do that. so let's get to work, to create jobs so many more people can achieve the american dream. i urge my colleagues to vote no. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield four minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks, who is the chairman of the constitution subcommittee of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for four minutes. mr. franks: and i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, all financial budgets will eventually balance. the choice faced by those of us in congress is whether we will balance this budget ourselves by the wise policy before us or whether national bankruptcy and financial ruin will do it for

us. from the very day that barack obama walked into the white house, he has with breathtaking arrogance absolutely ignored economic and financial reality. it took america the first 216 years of its existence to accumulate the debt that barack obama has accumulated in the first three years of his presidency. he has in those short three years increased our federal debt by over $4 trillion. now, just to put that into perspective, mr. speaker, if all of a sudden a wave of responsibility swept through this chamber and we stopped all deficit spending today and began to pay installments of $1 million every day to pay down the over $4 trillion in new debt that barack obama has created in less than three years, it would take us more than 10,000 years to pay that off. and that's if we didn't pay one

dime in interest in the process. what you see, mr. speaker, we are not paying mr. obama's debt down at $1 million per day. we are going deeper into debt at more than $4 -- at more than 4,000 times that much every day under mr. obama's own submitted budget and deficit projections. mr. speaker, an unanimous prologue to the vote before us, the national debt surpassed $15 trillion yesterday. mr. speaker, we have already tried mr. obama's way. we have thoroughly tested democrat economics 101. the theory that we can tax and deficit spend ourselves into prosperity or as vice president biden put it, we have to spend money to keep from going bankrupt. mr. speaker, that theory has utterly failed. we cannot repeal the laws of mathematics. but now the seminal moment approaches when each of us in

this body will have the rare opportunity to cast a single vote that could pull this nation back from the brink of economic cat cliss am. and for the sake of our children and our children's children, i pray that we do the right thing. with that i yield back. mr. conyers: mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the chair must remind all members that remarks in debate may note had not engage in personalities toward the president. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i am directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from -- the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased now to recognize from virginia, the distinguished gentleman, jim moran, for two minutes.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. moran: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i have to rise in opposition to this balanced budget amendment. i did vote for a similar measure in 1995, but the events of the last 15 years have brought to mind the axiom, fool me once, your fault, fool me twice, my fault. i could never have imagined back in 1995 the chaos we experienced this summer. despite the fact that beedge -- we only needed to obtain a simple majority vote to raise the debt limit, which we raised 17 times during the reagan administration, that would seem like child's play compared to what we would have to go through if this balanced budget amendment passed. the events of these last 15 years have proved to us that this bill would have dramatic and dangerous consequences for our economic future. it would force the federal

government to worsen economic recessions, since federal revenues fall while human needs rise in economic downturns, this bill would force spending cuts and tax increases at precisely the point when the economy is reeling, potentially turning a management downturn into a depression. essentially this bill would forbid countercyclical spending. had this amendment been on the books in the 2009, for example, we would not have passed the economic recovery act, which proved to be a critical response to the economic catastrophe that followed the financial crisis. one of the reasons that the recovery act was necessary is that state balanced budget amendments forced states to rely on federal funds in order to make up for budget shortfalls that would have prompted cuts right at the time when state economies could least afford them. the federal government was effectively borrowing on behalf of the states that were

constitutionally prohibited from doing so. but they desperatery -- desperately needed to in order to maintain their law enforcement, transportation, and their other responsibilities. even in texas where republican governor perry and the legislature opposed the recovery act, federal stimulus funds were used to close 97% of that state's budget gap. now that those dollars are gone, many states face a very serious budget crisis. can i have another 30 seconds? furthermore, house resolution 2 will require a 3/5 majority vote to raise the debt ceiling. this would have a catastrophic debt default like the one we have barely avoided this summer. given the polarization that we are currently experiencing, i have severe doubts that the simple majority could be secured, either to respond to crises or raise the debt ceiling. this would require only a

majority for deficit spending for wars such as the iraq war, which was never paid for, but a 3/5 majority to respond to domestic economic crisis. if this were enacted in 2012 it would require drastic, drastic cuts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. moran: which would have unintended but dire consequences. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. moran: this is the wrong medicine for our ailing economy. the speaker pro tempore: i ask members to heed the gavel and the time. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy, who is a distinguished member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. gowdy: i thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank chairman smith for his leadership on this issue and so many others on judiciary. mr. speaker, when one was coming back from the trojan war, he was coming and many had come to the sound.

so odysseus put wax in their ear and made him tie to the mass. against his will they made him tie him up and he did it because he lacked the will to restrain himself. and when people take our freedom, we recall, but when we have proven ourselves to be wholly incapable of exercising that freedom we should give it up. congress has proven itself to be hopelessly incapable of balancing the budget. we need to be made to do so because we cannot bring ourselves to make the hard decisions required. as my colleague and friend who's been leader on this issue, mr. goodlatte, mentioned in his remarks six times in 50 years is laughable. you would do better than six out of 50 if you just guessed. six out of 50 is laughable. we are incapable of balancing

our own budget. and when south carolina, mr. speaker, which does have a balanced budget requirement, was facing tough economic times, we had to cut public safety money to prosecutors. i had to cut and furlough employees who were making $19,000 a year. i had to furlough prosecutors who had $100,000 in student loans for seven days. that's a hard decision to make, but we had to do it for fiscal health. we need to make hard decisions even if there are career-ending decisions in this body and we have proven ourselves incapable of doing it so we must bind ourselves, even against our will. if i could have 10 more seconds, mr. speaker. mr. smith: i'll yield the gentleman for 30 second. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. gowdy: mr. speaker, we are $15 trillion in debt. we need to tie ourselves up before we wreck this republic,

and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased at this time to recognize the gentleman from new jersey, the distinguished leader in the congress, bill pascrell, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. ranking member, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this attempt to change the constitution of the united states is a real disaster. we all want to make sure we balance our budgets, but to compare our household budget to the national budget is prepostruss. -- propostruss.

alexander hamilton, who wrote so many of the federalist papers, i thought we understand a great leader, a great american, i thought we understood what the responsibilities of government are. but talking about disasters, what about natural disasters? how would a balanced budget amendment affect how the congress looks at when there is a tornado in joplin, a wipeout and flooding in new jersey, a hurricane in florida, wildfires in texas? the amendment requires this balanced budget amendment, which is a joke to begin with, how you named it. it doesn't balance the budget. if it got through it would take seven years to implement.

we have people out of work now. but anyway, the amendment requires a supermajority for every emergency spending in the case of natural disasters. let's take my state of new jersey. fema estimates that it will provide $400 million to help communities and individuals across the state recover and rebuild. last september we couldn't even get a majority, let alone a supermajority, to pass disaster aid unless it was offset with partisan budget cuts. every state will have to go through that. i want every state to know, you talk about the states, you talk about their budgets. isn't it interesting in january of this year c.b.o. director wrote this -- amending the constitution to require this sort of balance raises risks.

listen, my friends and my brothers and sisters, the fact that taxes fall when the economy weakens and spending and benefit programs increase, by nature they have to, people will need help unless we are not going to be a first rate republic. when the economy weakens, in an automatic way under existing law is an important stabilizing force for the aggregate economy. the fact that state governments need to work. against these effects in their own budgets need to take action to raise taxes -- mr. conyers: i yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. pascrell: thank you. the fact that state governments needs to take action to raise taxes or to cut spending in

recisions. undoes the automatic stabilizers essentially at the state level. taking those away at the federal level risks making the economy less stable, risks exacerbating the business cycles. we did it together, democrats and republicans, 1998, 1999, 2000, we did it without an amendment to the constitution which will undermine this institution that we have here today. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i'll yield two minutes to my friend from california, mr. herger, who is a member of the ways and means committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. herger: mr. speaker, the american people understand the basic principle that you can't spend money you don't have.

they live that reality on a daily basis. unfortunately congress has disregarded this idea, choosing instead to imagine that it could spend money endlessly without harming our economy or standard of living. the result is that we're now an unthinkable $15 trillion, $15 trillion in debt. some argue that we don't need to amend the constitution for washington to do its job. i'm proud to say that i served in the budget committee in the late 1990's when we produced four consecutive balanced budgets. but the sad truth is that this kind of fiscal responsibility has been all too rare in recent years. ultimately a balanced budget amendment will force congress to be serious about addressing the core driver of our debt which is the out-of-control growth of federal entitlement

spending. as the president has acknowledged, no taxpayer will be willing to pay the amount required to sustain the exponential growth of entitlements and no amount of budget gimmicks can hide this serious crisis. a balanced budget is a commonsense idea that governs our personal lives and it should also be at the heart of how congress operates. i strongly support the balanced budget amendment, and i urge the house to pass it. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to recognize judy chu, a member of the judiciary committee from california, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for three minutes. ms. chu: proponents of this

bill claims this is about fiscal responsibility but it is the opposite. this bill makes it impossible, in fact, unconstitutional, for the government to save for the future. under this bill programs like social security or long-term federal highway projects would have to be completely eliminated to comply with the constitution. today, american workers put money into a social security trust fund built to pay and save for future benefits. but under this short siggeted -- shortsighted constitutional amendment, money must be paid out the same year. that means you can't have a social security trust fund. so goodbye, social security. goodbye, savings for retirement. let me tell you how bad this idea is. let's say for a moment that this was your family's budget.

if this constitutional budget amendment applied to you, you would have to spend everything you earn in the same year. no college fund or i.r.a. no savings account to put a down payment on a house or god forbid to pay for expensive medical treatment. not only is that ludicrous, it is tragic. if that weren't bad enough, if this constitutional amendment goes through and no revenues are raised, all government programs will suffer a 17.3% cut. that's a $1.2 trillion reduction in social security payments through 2021. that is nearly a 20% reduction that would directly hurt current and future retirees and senior citizens for the next decade. this so-called balanced budget amendment balances overzealous budget slashing on the backs of our citizens and future retirees. does congress really want to send a message now in the midst

of the worst financial crisis since the great depression that saving for the future is un constitutional? does congress want to abandon americans now? i do not. i urge my colleagues to oppose this reckless constitutional amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. goodlatte: i thank you, mr. chairman. i want to make it clear. some inaccurate assertions have been made about the social security and the highway trust fund. the funds can be spent each year and any excess funds that need to be retained can be put into a rainy day fund, and so the social security trust fund or another type of fund like that is perfectly permissible under this provision. what is not permissible is continuing to run up debt year after year after year, and that is what endangers social security and medicare and

important programs for our senior citizens and that's why this amendment is needed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. barrow, who is a member of the energy and commerce committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. barrow: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the chairman for yielding me time. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the balanced budget amendment which i have supported since i first came to congress. . we agree our nation's debt is unsustainable and folks are struggling to find work. the facts are stubborn things and it's a fact that balancing the budget is essential if we are going to protect the future of our children and grandchildren. balancing will create the stability our economy needs. amending our constitution is not something to take lightly. we shouldn't do it on a whim or because it's politically expedient.

amending the constitution is something we as a nation should undertake when it is truly needed. unfortunately, congress has demonstrated that it cannot and will not balance the budget on its own and it is truly needed now. every state in the union has a balanced budget amendment. families have to bring their income in the the balance and so can the federal government. this legislation is bipartisan, it is responsible and right thing to do and i hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me and the blue dog coalition in supporting the balanced budget amendment. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i yield to jerry nadler for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. nadler: i have to correct what the gentleman from virginia said a moment ago when he said it would not affect social security because social security would be protected by the trust

fund. this amendment says outlays can't exceed receipts. that includes social security, which the courts have held is not a debt. therefore, social security would have to be paid out of the same amounts and there would be cap against the outlays to determine whether the budget is imbalance something that is not in case today. and would require deeper cuts. if the -- if this amendment were in effect today, medicare would have to be cut by $750 billion, social security by $1.2 trillion. veteran benefits, 85 billion despite anyone may say on the floor, that's the simple truth of this amendment. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i yield to ms. berkley for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized.

ms. berkley: i rise in strong opposition to this dangerous balanced budget constitutional amendment. we all agree that we must get america's fiscal house in order by cutting spending and balancing our budget. nevada families know this. families across nevada are doing it by tightening their belts and making great sacrifices. the united states government should be able to do the same. however this balanced budget amendment is wrong for nevada and it's wrong for the rest of the country. it would force massive cuts to social security, medicare and veterans' benefits. but the oil companies and corporations that ship jobs overseas aren't asked to sacrifice one penny under this amendment. that's just not right. but this is what the american people have come to expect from this congress. republicans supported a radical budget proposal, the ryan budget that turns medicare to private

insurance companies and they are proposing to slash social security and medicare benefits that seniors rely on. it's a question of priorities. i believe we need to get our deficit under control and i believe that a version of the balanced budget amendment could be one way to achieve that, but i cannot and will not support a balanced budget amendment that doesn't include iron-clad protections for social security, medicare and veteran benefits. we shouldn't be balancing the our nation's budget. this may be good politics for some, but it is not good policy for america. and i urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on this attack on our seniors and our veterans. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lanching ford, who is a -- lankford.

mr. lankford: 27 times united states constitution has been amended. something we do rarely and something we should think through in the process. we do it only because it is absolutely required and we have common agreement across the house, senate and the american people. this is one of those moments. if you ask every american on the street, should we balance our budget, they will nod your head. if you ask them again, should we force congress to balance the budget? again, they will say yes, this is something we should do. there is common agreement across the american people. it's common sense. it's hard to explain why they have to balance their budget and congress does not. ultimate exemption that they can spend as much as they want as often they would like without any retribution. i hear statements that if we

balanced the budget what would happen if we had to live within our means. makes me smile and say, just like every business, every family, we have to make hard choice is and we have to do it. but it's not what doomsday prediction happens when we balance our budget. it is look up across the ocean in what is happening in europe right now, the nations that did not balance their budget. and for some reason we think we can run up as much debt as we would like with no consequence and we are fooling ourselves. doomsday is coming and must put a boupped dry to balance our budget. in 1995, when this tailed by one vote, we will forever regret that if this occurs again. it's time for us to balance our budget. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i yield to the distinguished gentlelady from ohio, ms. fudge, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for two minutes.

ms. fudge: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to speak in opposition to the balanced budget amendment, despite its name, this amendment does not balance the budget. it would have little effect on our deficit but could harm our economy. it would destroy jobs, drastically cut medicare and social security and unconstitutionally give federal judges the power to make spending decisions. and this amendment does not even require a balanced budget every year. what it does is make it easier to cut taxes and more difficult to raise taxes in order to allocate money to important programs that protect our veterans, our seniors and our most vulnerable. it could also allow federal judges to have the final say on taxing and spending decisions. no one knows if amending the constitution could requireal balanced budget will reduce the debt or prevent the debt from

growing in the future. when democrats control congress, pay-go was affecttive and what we know that this amendment is not the answer. if a balanced budget requirement were to go into effect, it would destroy jobs. cuts would come to about $1.5 trillion in 2012. this would throw 15 million more americans out of work, double the unemployment rate to approximately 18% and cause the economy to shrink by 17%. republicans as part of their budget proposal have made it clear, they want to cut medicare, medicaid and social security. by requiring a balanced budget these programs would be directly on the chopping block. according to the center on budget and policy priorities, this amendment could force congress to cut all programs by an average of 17.3% by 2018.

if revenues are not raised, medicare could be cut by $750 billion. democrats have balanced the budget before and we will do it again without harming the economy. this amendment is nothing more than a republican political diversion and i urge my colleagues to vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from texas. mr. fortenberry: i don't take the issue lightly of amending our constitution which has endured through strife and dramatic historical shifts. the constitutional amendments should be exceedingly rare. as they have the power to spur sweeping change. but i do believe it is necessary that the same process that guaranteed our hallmark freedoms of speech and religion and freedom from slavery be used to

protect our children and future generations from economic collapse. most states, including nebraska have enacted balanced budget requirements. my state has to live within its means. the federal government needs to do the same. mr. speaker, we are standing at history's door. we can either lead and be bold, making the hard decisions necessary to correct this fiscal trajectory or stay in our time war and political lanes staying with the status quo that has given this nation this unsustainable debt burden. we could do something big for this country and our future and make deficit spending a thing of the past. this is a significant moment. i urge that we pass this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased now to recognize the

gentlelady from illinois, january schakowsky, for -- jan schakowsky for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. schakowsky: i rise in opposition to the balanced budget amendment. president clinton office with not just a balanced budget but with a surplus and got there by a one-vote margin, no republican votes whatsoever. and here we are today after eight years and two wars and two tax cuts that were paid for on the credit card, namely benefiting the wealthy and devastating recession that could have been prevented by financial regulators not turned a blind eye to wall street and we are debating an amendment to the constitution that offers anything but balance. this amendment would destroy the budget, and in the process wipe out jobs. and aadvice rate social security, medicare, medicaid,

stinded unemployment benefits as well as cancer research, bridge repair and food inspection and you name a program and this amendment will put it at risk. balanced budget amendment could force congress to cut all programs by an average of 17.3% by 2018. this amendment would limit the ability of the federal government to respond to national crises, including an economic or natural disaster and virtually guarantee that recessions turn into depressions. this amendment would require a supermajority to raise a debt ceiling a reckless requirement considering how we came close to defaulting. and i'm tired of hearing republicans say, well, states and families must balance their budgets, so should the federal government. the states have to balance their operating budgets but can still borrow for capital projects and families have to manage their budgets but can do so by

incurring debt, home mortgages, car loans, student loans. this amendment blocks the federal government from making investments in the same way. and suppose in 2008 when the deficit seemed manageable, we had a balanced budget america. the effect on the economy would be catastrophic if the 2012 balanced budget were balanced suspending cuts. those cuts it is predicted by economic advisers -- mr. conyers: i yield the gentlelady 15 seconds. ms. schakowsky: macroeconomics, said that those cuts would throw about 15 million more people out of work, double the unemployment rate from 9% to 18% and cause the economy to shrink by about 17% instead of growing. this will make the economy

worse. vote no. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from washington. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. james madison said the trickiest question that the constitutional convention confronted was how to object lying a government to control -- oblige a government to control itself. it offers us many, many examples of nations that spent, borrowed and taxed their way to economic ruin and bankruptcy. and history is screaming to us a warning that nations that bankrupt themselves aren't around very long because before you can provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty, you have to be able to pay for it. today, i rise in strong support of the balanced budget

amendment. this last weekend i read the 1995 judiciary committee report that passed the resolution at that time. the same justifications put forward against the balanced budget amendment in 1995 are the same ones we hear today. the report high lites 4.7 trillion debt in 1995. discusses the implications of a $200 billion interest payment. i only wish those were the debt levels we are responding to today. what this comparison means we haven't corrected the government spending problem on our own. our debt has tripled and interest payments more than doubled in the last two decades. all we have to show for over that time is that we have a spending problem. in fact, we have an addiction and i don't see it going away unless we pass this. where would we be today if the balanced budget amendment had passed the senate in 1997 and

had been sent to the states? i guarantee we wouldn't be facing a total debt of $15 trillion or $450 billion interest payment. where would we be five to 10 years from now without a balanced budget amendment? i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from texas. michigan, i apologize. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield to the former chair of the progressive caucus, lynn woolsey, the gentlelady from california, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. . ms. woolsey: earlier economist bruce bartlett, who served in the reagan and bush administrations, had this to say about an earlier republican

balanced budget amendment. he said, and i quote him, it looks like it was drafted by a couple of interns on the back of a napkin. grant it, he was talking about a different version, but i still say that was pretty unfair to interns who i think could do a lot better than this amendment that we're debating today. if the balanced budget were in place today it would cripple the economy and decimate social security, medicare, veterans' programs, among many others. the austerity dogma of the republican majority, their balanced budget fetish is hurting america, not helping it. we need more federal dollars pumped into this economy. we need it to stimulate demand and to create jobs. we don't need less. if you get caught in a rainstorm, i mean, i wouldn't want to be caught in the rainstorm with the other -- anybody on the other side of the aisle because i'd be afraid that they'd propose a

constitutional amendment banning umbrellas. called me old-fashioned, mr. speaker, but i think amending the constitution is a pretty big deal. it should be reserved for correcting gross injustices and expanding fundamental rights. for decades i've been those pushing for a constitutional amendment that enshrines the notion that women should be treated equally. republicans want no part of that, but they're eager for a constitutional amendment that shreds the safety net and could cause another recession for our country. no, thanks. vote no on this balanced budget amendment. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i'll yield two minutes to the gentleman from mississippi, mr. nunnelee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized for two minutes. mr. nunnelee: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. before i came to this body, i chaired the appropriations committee in the mississippi

senate. i worked with my counterpart in the other chamber, democrat, chairman johnny stringer. we crafted three balanced budget because chairman stringer had a principle that you can't spend more money than you take in. one thing i learned is that there are always more needs, more requests than there are available resources. and that fact causes you to make some difficult decisions. we made those difficult decisions in the mississippi state house. in fact, there are 49 states that require that around the nation. municipal, county governments are making those difficult decisions. more importantly, families are making those decisions sitting around the kitchen table, and small businesses are making those decisions tonight. and if there are willing to live within their means, they have every reason to expect their government in washington

to do the same thing. this balanced budget amendment has been a dream of leaders in this body since thomas jefferson. 16 years ago we had bipartisan support and came within one vote of getting it adopted. i welcome the support of those democrats that are stepping up and giving bipartisan support to this measure. we must have a balanced budget amendment to rein in spending so that we can create jobs. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi yields back his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, steny hoyer has been working in leadership for many years. he is now our distinguished whip, and i recognize him for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for five minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the chairman for yielding. mr. speaker, in 1995 i spoke on the floor in support of a

balanced budget amendment. that was 16 years ago. there's a lot of water over the bridge since that time. i said then and i quote, i do so because i believe that this country confronts a critical threat caused by the continuation of large annual deficits. i believe that then. and i believe it now. and i voted against tax cuts that weren't paid for. i voted against social security benefits that weren't paid for. and i voted against other items that weren't paid for. i stand by my 1995 statement today. however, as i have said, events in the last 16 years lead me to oppose today's bill -- balanced budget amendment. only months after we had that debate, my republican colleagues shut down the government.

in 1997 we passed an amendment with bipartisan agreement reaffirming the 1990 agreement that we would have a pay-go process in place. and without having passed a balanced budget amendment, we did in fact balance the budget four years in a row. why? because we paid for what we bought, we didn't cut revenues before we cut spending, and we restrained spending four years in a row. i tell my republican friends, none of you in your lifetime has lived during the course of a president who had four balanced budgets. were you personally responsible? absolutely. were we personally responsible? absolutely -- partially responsible? absolutely. we didn't need an amendment. we needed the will and the courage. without having passed that balanced budget amendment under

president clinton, not only were we able to balance the budget but we also achieved the only president term in the lifetime of anybody in this chamber or listening to me that had four years of balance and a net surplus. hear me. a net surplus at the end of 96 months as president of the united states. we made it happen not with a balanced budget amendment but because we had the will to do so and by following pay-go rules. sadly, i tell my colleagues and the american people, mr. speaker, under president bush republicans exploded the deficit and abandoned pay-go. along with the principle that we ought to pay for what we buy. we do not have a spending problem or a revenue problem. we have a pay-for problem.

the republican congress spent enormous sums on two wars, a prescription drug program, and tax cuts without paying for them. if you have the courage of your convictions, you pay for things. spending levels nearly twice the inflation rate that bill clinton's rose and spending during the eight years of the bush administration. when republicans were in charge of everything for six years and vetoing everything we did for two. when the financial crisis hit in 2008, president bush told us that if we failed to act there would be a high risk of depression. what did the president's party do? you say you have a 3/5 vote if there's an emergency. president bush told us that if

we did not act there would be a depression. and in fact we had a vote. and that vote was 205-228 with 2/3 of the president's party voting against the president in what he called a crisis. that gives me, i tell my friends on the republican side, no confidence that in time of danger and crisis that we could summon 3/5 vote. i believed in 1995 we could summon those votes because, frankly, we were a much more bipartisan and in my opinion responsible body, but i do not have that confident today. and i am not prepared to take that risk. my party, of course, voted with president bush because we thought there was a crisis. now, a few days after that we came back to vote and we did pass it, but i tell my friend -- may i have an additional minute?

mr. conyers: i grant one additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one additional minute. mr. hoyer: i tell my friends that even on the second vote when we did in fact pass that bill that president bush asked us to pass because there was a crisis, he could not summon the majority of your party to support him. barely 3/5 notwithstanding the president's assertion of crisis voted to meet that crisis with 172 democrats voting with president bush in a bipartisan response to crisis. earlier this year, again, in control of the house, republicans brought the government to the brink of shutdown over the summer we saw them almost at the brink of default. i have not changed my beliefs

about balancing the budget, and i invite all of you to vote with me on paying for things that we buy, not passing those onto my children, my grandchildren and my two great grandchildren. we have shown we can do it. we balanced the budget for four years. don't talk about it. just do it. don't spend the -- don't refuse to pay for it. don't cut taxes and increase spending. 10 additional seconds. mr. conyers: granted. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 10 additional seconds. mr. hoyer: don't just preach fiscal responsibility. practice it. it will take no courage to vote for this amendment, but it will take courage to balance our budget by paying for what we buy. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i want to point out for the record that all of the balanced budgets during the clinton administration was during a republican control of congress. mr. hoyer: will my friend yield? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from michigan is recognized for -- mr. hoyer: i guess my friend won't yield. host: the gentlelady from michigan is recognized for two minutes. -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mrs. miller: our constitution sat bedrock foundation for this, the united states of america, the greatest nation on earth. and, mr. speaker, our founding fathers and their genius provided us a way to amend the constitution to deal with the changing world. james madison, who of course is widely seen as the father of the constitution, once said that a public debt is a public curse. in 1995, this house passed a

very similar balanced budget amendment to the one we are considering today, the amendment received 300 votes in this house but failed by one vote in the u.s. senate. since then our national debt has grown by nearly $9 trillion. yes, $9 trillion, including $4 trillion in new debt in just the last three years. and today the debt is over $15 trillion. and the fact of the matter is that our public debt has become the public curse of which madison warned us. the american people understand that this level of debt is not sustainable and that is why they overwhelmingly support this balanced budget amendment. and today we have a choice, mr. speaker. do we answer the call of the american people and embrace fiscal responsibility or do we continue the status quo of more spending and more borrowing and more debt? it's time for this congress to use the tools our founding fathers gave us, mr. speaker, to amend the constitution to

save further generations from the shackles of unsustainable debt. i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense amendment to balance our federal budget. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield to the distinguished gentleman from st. louis, missouri, lacy clay, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for two minutes. mr. clay: i thank my friend from michigan for yielding. . my democratic colleagues have spoken and will speak eloquently on the numbers. they will or have pointed to the millions of jobs and the balanced budget amendment would certainly destroy. however, i want to talk about the personal impact of this irresponsible legislation. for example, social security recipients should not be held responsible for congress'

reckless acts. radically cutting social security hurts americans, drastically cutting medicare hurts americans. enormous cuts to defense and homeland security, food stamps, veterans' pensions and supplemental security income for the elderly, disabled, hurts americans. it hurts america and makes us less safe and secure. and make no mistake, this legislation requires these massive cuts. some have claimed that these cuts will not be necessary under this legislation or worse, that they are necessary and good. they claim that cutting benefits to the most vulnerable americans is good, that destroying jobs, destroying lives is good. mr. speaker, it is not. it is not good. it is not good to balance the

budget on the backs of those who can least bear the burden. it is not good to balance the budget by taking away from those who have so little. this is exactly what the balance the budget amendment would do and it takes away from medical care for seniors. that means more of our elderly unable to afford their medication, unable to get needed tests and treatment and more americans hurting. it destroys jobs. that means more americans out of work, more americans unable to pay their bills, and more american families -- and more american families hurting. hubert humphrey said it best. the moral test of government is how government treats those in the dawn of their life, the children. those in the twilight of their life, the elderly and those in

the shadows of life, the sick, needy and disabled. this reckless legislation fails all tests. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the the gentlewoman from washington. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. herrera beutler: chimp hill said americans can be counted on to do the right thing after they have exhausted all other possibilities. it applies to this institution. what have we tried? we have tried billion dollar bailouts for auto companies and wall street fat cats, not for main street. we have done bailouts for auto makers and thrown money at everything and have added so much to our national debt in the last four years. republicans did it, too. doesn't make it right. so, are we better than we were four years ago?

no. in southwest washington state, we still have rampant unemployment and joblessness. i'm no economist and not the distinguished minority leader who i respect. i'm just an average american but understand a very simple truth, you cannot spend more than you have. that's all this amendment does. that's it. we aren't cutting social security. we aren't cutting medicare. we are actually protecting those programs by saying this federal government is going to live within the money that it takes from the taxpayers every year, no more, no less. it's very, very simple. you don't have to be an economist to understand that if you spend more money than you have every year, you have a problem. our problem is $15 trillion worth of back-breaking debt. we don't have to look much further than europe to know that no country can exist under debt like this for too long.

we are taking steps putting side boards on the reckless spending. we are uping the credit card that is going to break the back of the american people. i urge my colleagues to join us in bipartisan solutions that will bring an opportunity for america to prosper and succeed. a no vote is putting people under and putting politics above. we need to reverse that and put people above politics and urge a yes vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i yield myself as much as much time as i may consume. the gentlelady from washington, i listened to her very carefully, and she has promulgated one of the greatest misunderstandings in this debate, namely that the social

security and highway trust fund are not jeopardized by house joint resolution 2, because section 7 excludes repayment of debt principle from the definition of total outlays. according to the center of budget and policy priorities, the balanced budget amendment could result in medicare being cut by about $750 billion, social security, almost $1.2 trillion and the veterans' benefits, $85 billion through 2021 if cuts were spread proportionately. so i hope that there will be fewer and fewer of my colleagues

of trying to assure us that this bill does not jeopardize those programs. this is from the center on budget and policy priorities clyde coming up, detroit mayor david bing on his financial situation. then stephen chu testifies about loan guarantees. then we will be airing the house debate on a budget amendment to the constitution. "washington journal" we will

focus on the work of a committee. it is live on c-span everyday at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> for those who say my friends, for those that say that we are rushing this issue of civil rights. i say to them that we are 172 years away. for those who say that this civil rights program is an infringement on brights, i say the time has arrived in america for the democratic party to get out of the shadows a state right and work forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights. >> hubert humphrey spoke those

20 years before championing the civil rights bill. he was vice-president under lyndon b. johnson and later ran for president, in 1968 and lost. we will look at his influence this week on c-span series "the contenders. it is live friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. toldere's a story i was that when obama was given the first budget his first instinct was to veto the budget. he was told by them that there's no way he could do that. i think that had he vetoed it coming he would have been the tea party. he change the way washington works. he could have continued to

rally the reform movement that breaks up all over the world because of the frustration. >> lawrence less sec on money and the influence on washington sunday night on c-span. >> he says his city is in a financial crisis and is urging unions to accept wage cuts and encourage leaders to pay the city millions of dollars. this speech is courtesy of wxyz- tv. thank you. i want to thank our residents for tuning in and allowing me this opportunity to address the challenges we are facing.

four years ago, workers and management faced an uncertain future. rather than fighting battles, they chose to adapt new labor agreements, reduce wages and benefits and change the way be operated business. tonight we face the same challenge and must make similar decisions. our city is in a financial crisis. city government is broken. that is not new. if that is not an opinion. this is fact. when i ran for this office i said i would tell you the truth. even when it was not pretty or popular. the reality is simple. if we continue down the same old

path, we will lose the ability to control our own destiny. for decades, this city has refused to face the fiscal reality. we cannot continue to operate that way. the city could run out of cash by april but the shortfall of $45 million by the end of the fiscal year. city government has to work within a budget. we have tightened our belts and are spending and tried to do more with less. we have eliminated 2000 positions since i entered office. it is clear that we have to do more. residents are frustrated. i understand why. i talked to people every day. i received your letters.

i receive your e-mails. qe1 officers on the street. the yuan fire and ems services that have the resources to respond quickly when you call. you expect the street lights to keep you safe from criminals. those are all reasonable expectations of city government. their expectations that have not been met for far too long. i refuse to do what has been done in the past. i refuse to kick the can down the road. i stand before you tonight to outline what we're doing to do to address your concerns and ask

for your support. let me make one thing perfectly clear. i do not want an emergency manager of making decisions for my state. i want to leave the city back. i'm going to tell you what we're doing to get this up and running. i'm going to tell you what we're doing to turn the lights on and keep our cities save. i'm going to ask for a year helped to push for the reforms. there are structural changes we need to control our own destiny, with lesser revenue coming in and demand higher than ever before, we have to shift their priorities and fundamentally restructure how

government operates. public safety is the most important service we provide. i will not allow police and fire to be gutted. i will not allow criminals free rein over our city. we need every police officer on the street fighting crime. i will not eliminate hundreds of our force. we depend on them to save our lives every day. do not want to cut boots on the street but we need police and fire to accept the same 10 percent cut in salary that the rest of our city employees have accepted. together, the police and fire departments comprise about 60

percent of the city's budget dollars. adding that savings to the cuts instituted across all city departments will save a total of $13 million dollars this fiscal year. cutting resources to police and fire is not the answer. our officers need access to technology to lock up criminals and prevent homicides. shot-spotters is a technology that has been successful in cities across the country in helping to solve and prevent homicides. tonight i am asking that council take immediate action to approve that contract, funded by grants and drug seizure dollars, to give our officers the tools they need. [applause] we are making progress on public safety. overall, crime is down more than 10%. however, the most important measure of crime is up almost 20% from last year, loss of

life to homicide. it is an epidemic and we must do more to keep people safe. that is why in august i called our national, state and local law enforcement agencies together to establish a partnership and attack violent crime. in less than 24 hours, that collaboration led to one of the largest drug busts in the city's history. reducing crime is a responsibility shared across our city. as a community, that means stepping up and talking to police when you know something about a crime. it means respecting each other

and restoring the sense of community that once made detroit's neighborhoods the envy of cities across the country. over the last few months i have heard numerous stories of people who have been left out in the street and in the dark for hours waiting for buses. too many kids are late for school; workers late for their jobs and others are simply stranded and frustrated. we simply have to do better. on a daily basis, we need 305 buses on the street to provide optimal service for residents. over the last three months, we are on average almost 100 buses short of where we need to be. i won't stand here and tell you we have the ability to fix everything in the short-term. detroit has an aging bus fleet, a lack of resources for maintenance and higher demand than ever for bus service. that said, i recognize the need for immediate action. on october 19, i gave the

mechanics union and ddot management 30 days to work with us to determine how to get more buses on the street. based on hours of discussion and negotiation, i am taking the following actions: one, effective immediately, i have eliminated furlough days for the bus mechanics. we need every available hand working every day to get these vehicles on the street as quickly as possible. two, effective immediately, i have instructed ddot to allow for mechanics to work nearly around the clock to fix the buses. a 10 percent wage reduction will remain in place to offset the cost of this short-term solution. three, detroit police is providing enhanced security on the buses and random checks to protect passengers and drivers.

four, effective immediately, i have instructed ddot to ensure that parts are available to fix the buses. five, we have begun the process of selecting a new management firm. it is past time to bring the best-practice approach of industry experts to manage our fleet. given our challenges, it would be unrealistic to expect that next month we will have the 305 buses we need running every day. however, i will not settle for anything less than 25 additional buses returning to the street every month from now until march. while this action plan will

result in immediate improvements to bus service, the long-term issue with public transportation must still be addressed. ddot currently consumes $80 to $100 million dollars in subsidy from our general fund. that cannot continue. we must find ways to be more efficient and provide better service. the department is set to receive 47 new energy efficient buses through the federal stimulus by the end of march. in 2013, we will also replace an additional 20 buses thanks to a federal grant announcement by the obama administration. new vehicles are one piece of the long-term answer. better management is another. cooperation from our workers,

city council and our residents is the final and most important piece of the equation. i will not allow our kids and seniors to continue waiting in the cold for buses, standing out in the dark vulnerable to criminals. that brings me to public lighting. no department needs structural investment more than our lighting department. like a car or a house, if you don't pay to maintain it, eventually it breaks down and falls apart. we need a lighting system that works in detroit. city government lacks the $300 million dollars in required capital investment and the know- how necessary to fix the lights. we must focus more on getting the lights on and less on who provides that service.

we have begun discussions with private utilities that can afford to make the necessary investments in public lighting. transferring pld responsibilities to a private entity is the long-term solution we need to provide residents a well-lit city. in the short-term, city council approved my proposal to get 5,000 lights back on in the next three months. let me be clear, this is only a temporary fix, not the long-term solution. we cannot fix all the lights out in every neighborhood. our focus right now is repairing lights in the residential areas where the majority of our population lives. we have contracted with dte to replace 3,000 lamps in dense areas. pld staff is focusing on fixing the grid that supplies an additional 2,000 lights across the city. given our fiscal crisis, spending money to fix the lights, get the buses running

and maintain public safety requires sacrifice in other areas. we have to make choices and there is no way to avoid that reality. if we don't, we know the risk. none of us want financial decisions being made by a state-appointed emergency manager. avoiding that fate means supporting change and sacrifice that won't be easy. the city will face a $45 million dollar cash shortfall by the end of the fiscal year if we don't make structural changes. today, i released to the public a new financial report showing our cash flow and what will happen if we fail to take action. it is available for anyone to see, with a full explanation

and summary on our website, detroitmi. gov. i encourage our residents to scrutinize that report, ask us questions and start a true dialogue about our options. last week i met with our union leadership to discuss what the city needs to avoid running out of cash. we presented this information and asked for the following. one, elimination of furlough days for all city employees with implementation of a 10 percent across the board wage cut. two, changes to existing healthcare coverage including a 10 percent increase in employee contributions to their coverage. three, pension reforms that will make the city more competitive with other municipal plans including reducing excess payouts from the system.

four, reform our work rules that will reduce overtime costs and streamline operations. five, additional strategic layoffs will also be necessary given the city's fiscal position. together, these five concessions represent a savings of more than $40 million dollars for this fiscal year. i know that accepting sacrifice is difficult for our city employees. i know that government has gone to the unions time and again asking for concessions in tough fiscal times. but at no time have city services suffered so much as they are today. residents deserve more than reduced services and high taxes. we simply cannot afford to provide the rich benefits packages that our employees have enjoyed for decades. this is not an attack on labor

or our dedicated employees. the private sector including the auto industry was forced to accept tough cuts to survive. the terms we are asking for are no different than what most detroiters receive at their places of employment. we are asking for the same partnership with city retirees. if detroit's 22,000 retirees accept the same medical and pension reforms, the city will save an additional $8 million dollars in this fiscal year alone. in addition to labor concessions and strategic workforce reductions, we will implement the same 10% reduction in pay for city contractors. effective january 1, we will also implement a tax rate increase of less than 1 percent

for corporations in detroit. if we are asking our unions and our contractors to sacrifice, it is basic fairness and common sense for the business community to contribute as well. i am also urging governor snyder and the state legislature to right one of the historic wrongs that contributed to detroit's fiscal crisis. in 1998, the city made an agreement with the state to lower its city income taxes over a period of years in exchange for a guaranteed level of state revenue sharing funds. while the city followed through on its commitment, saving detroiters millions in taxes, the state did not keep its promise.

that loss of more than $220 million dollars in revenue is enough to eliminate detroit's current structural deficit and compensate for this fiscal year's $45 million dollar shortfall. i am requesting the return of those funds to the city of detroit. detroit is critical to the region's economic success. without a strong urban core, surrounding communities in oakland, wayne and macomb county will also suffer. if we are truly serious about competing as a region, it is time to stand together and put our collective political will and power into action. we have to make a choice. if we want detroit to succeed

all of us have to put some skin in the game. if we want better public safety, if we want more buses on the street and more lights on, we have to make the changes i have outlined. tonight i am asking every detroiter and all who care about this city to stand with us and work with us to keep detroit our city. i want you to know the challenges we are facing. i want you to know what we're doing to address them. i want you to know that i love this city just like you and we need your help like we've never needed it before.

despite our challenges, there are many positive things that are happening in our city right now. our image is changing for the better. businesses are investing in the city again. people believe in detroit and want to see us succeed all across the world. we cannot afford to lose that momentum. the apathy that has paralyzed detroit for decades ends tonight. all of us have something to contribute to this effort. together we need to move our businesses, our employees, our contractors and elected officials to do what is right and necessary for detroit to succeed. we must cut pension and medical

costs by more than $40 million dollars annually and continue strategic layoffs. we must provide better services at a lower cost. tonight i laid out the steps to avoid the appointment of an emergency manager. i provided specific actions i am taking to get more buses on the street and thousands of street lights turned on. i outlined what we are doing to keep the city safe. detroit has always had the will to survive. we must once again stand up as a community and work together. addressing this fiscal crisis head-on is the only way to save our city. i want to thank you for watching tonight and for all that you do and will do for detroit. this is our city and our future. goodnight.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> stephen chu testify is to solyndra. then the house debate on the balanced budget amendment to the constitution. >> we will focus on the work of the joint deficit committee with democratic rep peter welch of vermont and trade goudy -- try gowdy. >> for those who say say that

we're rushing this issue as sober rights, i say to them we are 172 years late. for those who say that this program is an infringement on state rights, i say the time has arrived for the democratic party to get out of the shadows a state's right and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of schuman rights. >> the mayor of minneapolis was the vice president under lyndon johnson and later ran for president in 1968 and lost. we will look at his influence this week on "the contenders." it is live tonight it 8:00

eastern. the headline this weekend. we bring you the miami books their international. although the authors and join in s.th your e-mail' >> nationalism, tribalism, fundamentalism are more ideology. we are not immune from these forces. >> she is the suicide of a superpower. find the complete schedule online.

>> they denied there is pressure from the white house to back a loan guarantee to solyndra. the company went bankrupt earlier this year. in testimony, they said it was unlikely that much would be recovered to. >> good morning. we will be opening the subcommittee hearing. there are used in the department

of energy. we welcome this hearing at the subcommittee on oversight investigation to examine the review and approval of the $535 million loan guarantee to solyndra. as well as the repeated efforts to keep this company atop president obama's green jobs pedestal. while our investigation continues, it is apparent that senior officials put politics before the stewardship they tied themselves so closely and why they were so desperate to repeatedly prop up this company. why did they make these bad decisions tax was committed to

prevent a waste? many more questions have a marriage about the loan guarantee. it is the extent of the white house involvement. we're focused on the loss of $535 million a taxpayer money. when they were reviewing the application at the end of the bush administration, too many issues with the parent company tax flow remained unresolved. that led them to end discussions with solyndra. later that month, president obama was inaugurated and secretary chu took over. he implemented an acceleration policy. despite the deal causing some of again problems.

he was labeled a litmus test for the ability to fund could projects. the ribbon cutting ceremony was scheduled before they presented the final deal. he had time to conduct diligence. only six months after the long close, the financial problems became increasingly severe. president obama visited solyndra in may 2010 and proclaimed " feature engine of economic growth will always be companies like solyndra." it is important to understand how he addressed these concerns.

in the fall of 2010, solyndra had basically flat lines and started to default. documents showed they branded the company several waivers. despite clear language in the statute barring them from doing so, doe made an offer that would support them with regard to the first setting 5 million recovered. we talked of the legality of this arrangement.

this is a litmus test. we have bigger problems than a hand. it has now blown up. they have concerns about the ability to monitor loans. the white house has initiated a review of the portfolio. no one has amended defaults. our democratic colleagues shrug it off. sometimes things do not work out. the administration is refusing omb low goadoe and witnesses to testify.

>> thank you. which witnesses has the white house refused to testify under oath? please give me their names. >> effective have a list. could have a list. >> i like to welcome me. we have been urging the majority for a number of weeks to have the over to discuss the legitimate issues relating to the solyndra loan guarantee in the broader issue. we believe this is a critical issue to the american public.

is to drive clean energy. instead of conducting a serious and curry, -- inquiry, the majority of other you have focus on stereotypes. there is a subpoena battle with the white house. they negotiates an accommodation regarding key concerns. last week when the white house to produce documents, and they released to the press 3 e-mails that presented a distorted withholdingnt while

information. it directly contradicted the contradiction. i apologize for the actions of anyone in the administration. we had a strong investigations. as ranking member,it has been my hope we cdontinue this tradition. this has not been the case. this should not be the partista an victories or to smear. we s hould figure out what happened with the solyndra loan guarantees so we can bring accountability to the american people and improve our

availability. i think the appearance here can provide relative information. we need to examine whether due diligence occurred. committee staff recently conducted interviews of former officials. since july 2007 through july 2011. we told the committee staff that he believed the doe awarded a loan guarantee to solyndra and that the secretary did not ask anyone to cut corners. other officials here interviewed

said similar statements. i'm looking forward to hearing the secretaries perspective on the process that led to the loan guarantee. we need to look at whether the exercise good judgment did. we asked a former general counsel to review the legal rationale for subordination. they concluded it was reasonable, "the loan guarantee regulation in the prior interpretation, that had it been expressly considered of the authority, it posters

structuring it arose and reflected in the opinion. i ask consent that this be included in the record. >> the use of the lessons we can learn from the experience with restructuring. and regards the status of the efforts to monitor the solyndra loan guarantee. i hope the secretary can give us insight into whether solyndra made accurate representations through out the loan guarantee. we also need to hear from the secretary whether political fund-raising or anyone else has

any bearing on decisions relating to the solyndra loan guarantee. i hope this bill does to a robust discussion relating to the state of our energy policy. this is an excellent opportunity for us to learn how to best develop and implement policies that provide u.s. innovators the support they need to make the united statethe market leader. >> i now recognize the full chairman. >> welcome. the focus is to understand why the dot did and how they did.

many were from doe and were minimized. it is based on the rate it was burning through the issues. the staff were concerned that the company was bound to fail. and nobody had a crystal ball. no could have predicted the demise. the staff did predict this. when the models said they would run out of cash in september 2011. six months after it was finalized, the auditors echo many of the same issues about working ones.

they warned that solyndra would have problems staying afloat. these are not only shared by the experts, they reached the highest levels of the west wing. they touted the company as an economic story. these is just a few examples of the red flags that acted on to limit taxpayer losses. cylinder was on track and would arantxa go until the time they declared bankruptcy. they were receiving financial reports showing solyndra was bleeding cash.

taking extraordinary steps. what did you know about the situation decks when did you know it? hearted to act with the information? -- how did you know how to act with the information? this is an important piece of the process. i yield the balance of my time. >> near recognize -- you are recognized for the balance of the time. we appreciate your volunteering to testify. i've been on this committee 25 years. rarely if ever have i seen a more mismanaged program than the

solyndra loan guarantee. we are hopeful that you'll be able to answer a number of our questions today. i know you're doing your best. i do mean that you are a man of integrity. the first question is why did the obama department of energy reverse the bush department that the loan guarantee was not ready for prime time? to this day that puzzles me. it out like to hear your answer as to why he made the decision to violate the clear the of the law and title 17 that states that a loan guarantee it financed by the taxpayers cannot be subordinated to private investors.

that absolutely puzzles me. what guarantees do we have on behalf of the tax payer that changes will be made in the existing loans that have been put out on this program to the ?une of about $16 billion ta this is an important program.

.

as you manufacture -- and >> were you personally aware? >> in general, i certainly have enough experience of looking at companies. >> did anyone brief you specifically on solyndra's cash issues? >> yes, they did. >> but not before the loan closed? >> now before the loan closed. not that i recall. >> what did you know about the

financial health of solyndra before you approved that deal? >> it was believed to be a healthy company at the time of closing. the bond rating was a b + at the time of closing. >> why did you allow that company to pull down millions of taxpayer dollars after you discovered the financial problems in that company? >> that is an excellent question. as we began to note that the company had cash flow problems, not the project, we made the decision. the loan was to build the factory. the factory was about half built. if we had pulled the plug then, we were certain that solyndra would go into bankruptcy.

if they completed the factory and sold the factory and give them a fighting chance to survive as an ongoing company, was the probability? we faced a difficult choice. we felt the highest probability of recovering as much as possible of taxpayer dollars was to divert the funds. >> was it a desire for green energy jobs? >> we have a very green approach. when we made this loan we said there is a reasonable prospect that this loan will not be paid back. having said that, we were also mandated to make innovative loans. the loan loss reserve was designed and appropriated by congress to take care of

unfortunate instances. >> the gentleman from california, mr. bill bray, is recognized for five minutes. -- bilbray, is recognized for five minutes. >> i listen to your testimony in march 2010. at that time you stated quite succinctly that you think nuclear energy remains a safe, secure, and economical source of clean energy. do you still believe that today? >> well, yes. i believe nuclear energy can be safe and secure. >> i just wanted to make sure. you are a high-energy physicists. you probably understand the realities of that technology better than most if not all of your predecessors. you are also well versed in, not

just nuclear technology, but you have a steep learning curve when it comes to photosyntheic energy? you understand the advantages and disadvantages of poly, mono, and thin-cell technologies. >> i know the advantages and disadvantages, yes. >> you personally -- do you personally own any configuration? >> no. >> a little flashlight solar would be 10 cells. with what you know today and if you were buying something onay you were going to put your roof, and you had the choice of three different

divisions, which technology would you choose? >> it would really depend on the price, the guarantee, the warranty, how long the panels would last. it would be an economic decision. >> knowing what you know with those three quetta gorey's, with the same square footage -- with these three categories with the same square footage -- >> it is not clear. the thin-cell technology is a very good technology. this is why u.s. companies are investing. >> are you saying it is equal to the other two technologies? >> there are companies like general electric placing big

bets saying it is going to be superior. >> big bets for the future? the existing technology today does not reflect that? >> no, sir. i would disagree with that. >> i appreciate that. i am very surprised at you disagreeing with that. when we make reference to china and china's investments, are you aware that the overwhelming majority is not in amorphous technology? >> i am aware of that. >> was it a fact but the chinese were betting on a traditional, proven technology -- was that sold as being a reason to move into a new, pretty radical concept of how to produce solar panels using the amorphous technology? were you them. to be able to jump over and beat

the chinese at their game by using a new type of approach they were not willing to invest in? >> what the chinese do typically is take an existing technology and bring it to a very large scale and get an economy of scale. >> the chinese were not really placing bets on amorphous investments. there could be a market opportunity to beat him to it? >> the chinese actually were investing in amorphous found, but it turned out to be a bad thing for the chinese. >> not to interrupt you, but it seems like it was a bad bet for us. the worst problem we have had with the failed projects have been in office. >> i think you mean thin film. first of all, this is not the

department of energy. there are other companies investing in thin film technology because there is more technological head room in thin film. it is much cheaper to manufacture. the efficiency is coming up much more rapidly. >> but, historically, it has had a problem with your ability and production except in very low light applications. do you think the durability has been equal? >> maybe mixing conflating amorphous film. >> it was developed in a

national laboratory and licensed to other companies. it is very competitive. >> was solyndra proposing to use that? >> solyndra was using another technology. it has the same capabilities in terms of the overall efficiency. at the time, they were the same price in terms of production efficiency and they were making improvements >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman, i thank you. i hate to start off with a sports analogy, but i think i will. this sunday, the atlanta falcons were playing the world champion new orleans saints in atlanta and they went into overtime tied. at the falcon coach made a decision deep in his own

territory, fourth-and-one, to go for the first down knowing if the punted the ball back to the new orleans saints and their great quarterback, they would be unlikely to stop him. he goes on for a first down and mrs. it. two plays later, the new orleans saints have a chip -- chip shot field goal and they win the game. he made a ridiculous decision, but it was not against the law. now, in this situation of restructuring the solyndra loan, i think what we have done at the department of energy, despite what the council has said, is breaking the law under the energy policy act. i would just like to know from you, mr. secretary, when the people at treasury, the people who actually made the loan --

this was not a $535 million loan guarantee, it came straight at of the financing bank -- they said in a letter or e-mail to your folks at the department of energy, before you do this restructuring, i think you better get an opinion from the justice department. the department of energy ignored that and got their own letter from in-house counsel and came up with something, in my opinion, that breaks the law you have explained to us your feeling about all of that. if you did not do it, the taxpayer would very likely, almost immediately, seek a bankruptcy of the company and a total loss of the loan -- $535 million. if you restructured it and allow them to come in with $75 million

more in private equity that might save the day. it was a tough decision and you approved and went ahead with this restructuring of the loan. clearly breaking the law. you saw the slide early. the language is pretty clear. the result, of course, is the same. in atlanta at this past sunday when coach smith made the fateful decision, my colleague here from louisiana said it was a good decision, but everybody says the decision you made was a bad decision. i just do not understand why you did not go ahead and submit this to the justice department and asked one of their high-powered lawyers or assistant attorney general to give you an illegal -- debut a legal opinion on

that. >> it is my understanding that there is a change in conditions of the loan if you, for example, decrease the amount to be paid back or decrease the interest rate, up things of that issue. it was not only the opinion -- the opinion of the council within the department of energy -- >> mr. secretary, i apologize for interrupting you, but i do not think the folks within the department of energy and the loan program were the experts in this case. the bankers in the federal financing bank and the treasury department, clearly, they are experts. all of a sudden, they are worried about the loan. let me move onto another subject. i want to ask you if you are familiar with the recent "washington post" article -- i believe this is november 50, or

just a couple of days ago -- -- and november 15, or just a couple of days ago -- the title is "solyndra -- the energy department keeps quiet until after midterm elections." mr. chairman, i would like to ask unanimous consent to submit this into the record. >> so order. >> in this article, they are saying the solyndra people were trying to make sure the federal finance bank would continue to advance them loan proceeds, maybe even a little advance before they were ado, and basically, the department of energy according to this article, said they knew there would be layoffs coming up, they have been leaked to the press, and we would prefer you not announced the layoffs until

november 3, one day after midterm elections. of course, they got their advancement on the loans. that is a little suspicious. do you have any comments on that at all? >> first, i am not aware of any conversations. it is not the way that i do business. i am looking at a loan with taxpayer interest. those factors are not part of our consideration. something like that was not discussed with me. i would have not approved it. >> mr. secretary, i believe you, but this looks highly political. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. secretary, thank you for coming i want to express similar

sentiments as dr. burgess and others express. i strongly support all of the above energy policies. frankly, in our country, we are sadly lacking a real energy policy. we have to use all the things we have, including wind and solar, but clearly we can see those technologies and still not advance to the levels they need to. it is a question of the solyndra loan -- $535 million of taxpayer money that has been lost. how did we get to this point? one of the big issues i have struggled with is when we get to this question of subordination and the loan restructuring, if we go back and look at the law -- this is the law of the united states -- ed it seems clear to those of us who looked at the law, you cannot put the taxpayer

at the back of the line when you come to the decision of whether or not you are going to restructure. first, this is the actual restructuring we got from your agency. this is the document that initiated the restructuring of the loan, including the subordination of the taxpayer. is this your signature on this page? did you sign off on this document? this is noted as item 59. this actually deals with the restructuring of the loan guarantee to solyndra, including the restructuring. did you sign off on this? >> yes, i did. that is my signature. quite clearly, when you go back and look at the lot -- and i hope you look at the lot yourself before you sign off on this document this is not 50 pages. it is not even a paragraph.

if you look at this one paragraph and you said the obligation shelby subject to other financing -- you can tell me you read this and still determined that it was ok pour youtube subordinate the taxpayer? >> we did not subordinate the taxpayer under the terms of the original loan. >> does the taxpayer have first dibs on the $535 million? >> at the time -- >> just answer my question. yes or no, mr. secretary? does the taxpayer have first dibs or does some other company have bids on the first dollar? >> after restructuring, no. >> let's go back to your legal counsel. the legal counsel did look at

this. not only did the legal counsel look at this -- i go to page 5 of the legal opinion -- their legal opinion says this reading of the opinion is backed up by the word "is." your go beyond department's attorneys. we discussed this in a previous hearing in our committee. gary burner over at the treasury said the statue lies with the department of justice. they recommended that you go to the department of justice to do that. >> we did not. >> why would you not go to the department of justice? this is the obama administration -- the treasury department saying at they do not is legal to put the taxpayer in the back

of the line. >> atwithin the covenant of the loan and within the boundaries of the original loan, you need not go to the justice department. >> i guess that is your opinion. i take it is wrong. i think it will come out that you did violate the law in that regard. it is a shame for the taxpayer. i want to know all of the people involved in the decisionmaking process. was anyone at the white house involved in the restructuring of the loan? we have e-mail's showing there was pressure coming from the white house. one of the reasons we are still trying to get documents from the white house -- we still have not gotten it all -- who in the white house was talking to you about restructuring the loan? >> to the best of my knowledge i have no knowledge of anyone saying we needed to restructure this loan. >> if you get any information on

that -- we are trying to get to the bottom of this. i have seen a lot of e-mails within the administration about politics. it was a front-page story on the washington post saying "pressing solyndra." they are not concerned about the layoffs. they are not concerned about people losing their jobs. this is disgusting. this happened under your nose. you testified you knew nothing about it. it happen at your agency. i hope you will go back to your agency and have some heads roll. people need to be held accountable. political decisions were being made in your department. by readymade above you and they're being made below you. i hope that somebody is. to be held accountable. we are going to hold people

accountable because $535 million in taxpayer money was lost. i see a whole lot of e-mails concerned about the politics. that is what stinks' the most about this. >> the gentleman's time is expired. you still do not know who at the white house and you have no interest in finding out -- you do not know who in your department was involved in this and have no interest in finding out? >> no, we do have interest in finding out. >> when are you going to do it? >> our general counsel will look at who was doing these things. >> the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. take a deep breath. it has been a long day. i am going in a different direction.

first, i draw your attention to 1702g4a. it is the same question with a slightly different legal basis. "if the borrower defaults on a obligation, the secretary shall notify the attorney general of the default." i point out to do december 13, 2010 letter to solyndra from jonathan silver, the head of the program. that is not in your book, mr. chairman. could that be admitted to the record by unanimous consent? >> so ordered. >> if we could get a copy to -- it is a letter from mr. silver to solyndra, inc. in that letter he notices they are in default.

>> without objection, the document is part of the record. >> thank you. in that document -- in that document, he notes that solyndra is in default and goes to the reason is they are in default. he says at the department does not take action immediately, they will not waive any of their rights. i refer you to document 67, the memorandum from susan richardson authorizing the subordination. she indicates in paragraph 3, first sentence, a default has required under the loan agreement. when that default occurred on december 1, 2010, 9 $5 million remained to be advanced. further, in an e-mail from february, silver further acknowledges that there was a

default in december by solyndra. that being said, mr. secretary, did your office in compliance with the code, 1702g4a, the section that says the secretary shall notify the secretary about the default, did you do that? >> i will have to go back and look at the code from the justice department. >> i am just asking you went there with a default in december, did you notify the attorney general as required by the code? i am not asking your interpretation of the letters. everybody can look it those later. i want to know if you and notified the attorney general in according to the law. >> that i will get back to you on. >> bottom line, your people said it looked like a default. on a default, you are supposed to notify the attorney general. i just want to know did you do it?

>> i do not know. i will get back to you. >> i appreciate that. do you know what the value in the out of the -- the you know what the value of the patents and the other international -- intellectual property of solyndra are? >> no. >> if you believe they have some value? >> they have some value. >> the ticket will be greater than $75 million? >> i have no way of deciding that. >> i would draw your attention to have a 68 in your book -- tab 68 in your book. do you have that in front of you? >> yes, i do. >> it appears there was something going on during the time when they were discussing the subordination. a lot of it -- a lot of it is redacted. the you know who it was from and who it was too?

it looks like it was from susan richardson. >> no, i do not. >> the you know why that information was redacted? >> no, i do not. >> can you find out what all that information was redacted? >> we can get that back to you. >> were you aware that there were numerous discussions about solyndra's default and the problems they were having. subordination came up fairly early in december of 2010. were you aware of that? >> they were thinking of subordination, but one cannot come forward until one understands the law. >> but do you understand that solyndra was looking at bankruptcy at that. and without some understanding that there would be a new $75 million they would have to file bankruptcy? >> they had a cash flow issue

and needed funds to continue. that is why one restructure's. >> i understand that, but do the records not reflect that there was already an understanding within the department of energy that there was going to be a subordination even before the lawyers had an opportunity to determine whether or not they could? >> we do not do anything -- is it okay to look at things in parallel? yes. but because -- but before our lawyers determine -- >> do you understand based on the documents that have been provided it is pretty clear from the record that solyndra would have had to file bankruptcy if the investors were not willing to put the $75 million in? therefore, in writing the legal memorandum, everybody in your department knew that unless they

could figure out a way to subordinate, solyndra was going down. is that true? >> no. that is not correct. our general counsel has a responsibility to protect the department of energy and make sure we act under the law. >> it is interesting. i just question why -- and i go back to some of the other questions -- why did you did not go to justice. were you afraid of getting an answer you did not like? >> the gentleman's time has expired. i want to let you answer. go ahead. >> we were required to go to justice if there was a revision of the loan. we did, as you know, go to

outside counsel and sought other opinions. there was a previous general counsel at the department of energy looking at the decision and also concurred with that decision. quite the gentleman from kansas is recognized for five minutes. >> i have only seen the draft. if we can get that outside counsel's opinion, i would greatly appreciate it. >> is it possible to get it today? the you have access to that? >> i do not know about today. we have the opinion of the previous general counsel at the department of energy. >> i am asking what you had at the time. >> we can certainly make those records available. >> we need the final is what the gentleman is asking for. >> that is correct. >> the gentleman from kansas is recognized for five minutes. forhank you secretary tchu

being with us this morning. you have talked about some of the changes you have made to strengthen oversight and i appreciate that. i want to test that just a little bit. when the loan was originally applied for, it was applied for under section 1703, is that correct? >> yes. >> with the stimulus money came available, it changed. did you uproot the decision to change it from a 1703 loan to a 1705 loan? >> i take this is an action from the loan program. >> the difference in those two

programs is that in 1703, companies have some skin in the game, but in 1705, it is very different. is that not correct? >> that is not correct. >> in 17 05, the credit subsidy does not get paid by the company. the american taxpayer provides the credit subsidy. >> the american taxpayer provides the credit subsidy, but in addition to that, there is a minimum of 20% additional the equity people would have to put in. >> this legislation had eight recent they wanted them paid for by the company. they have a greater interest in success. there was a reason the private entities were designed to be the ones to pay the credit subsidies.

there was a change in risk, would you agree? >> the 1705 was passed because congress and realized that many renewable companies when not be able to afford the credit subsidies and, therefore, tax dollars were used to pay for the credit. >> there are such bad investments that the company could not afford to pay the credit subsidy. the credit subsidy -- do you know what it was under the 1705 program? >> it was something like 17.8%. >> we are talking of $40 million. that is money the company could not afford to pay. >> the credit subsidy as appropriated by congress was there as a rigid. >> the company could not afford

to pay it, so the government stepped in. is that correct? that is what happened brigid yes or no? >> that is what happened. >> in light of the bankruptcy, has the dot changed that credit subsidy calculates in? >> of course. >> what is it now? >> if it is presumably quite high because we constantly reevaluate loans in the marketplace changes. we are constantly updating what the risk is. that is reflected in part by the credit subsidy score. >> it went from roughly 7% to -- >> it was probably in the '80s. >> when you change it, you know that the company is in deep financial trouble. that reflects the risk to the taxpayer. >> have you changed loans to

reflect this risk? >> in some cases the credit subsidy decreases. there are loans of $5.90 billion and the credit subsidy scores greatly decreases. it did what it was supposed to do. >> would the gentleman yield briefly? nowhere in the lock, nowhere in the definition does it say that program is to subsidize the loss of principal. the gentleman from kansas is absolutely correct. it is not designed to cover the loss of principal. your opening statement, mr. secretary is incorrect. i yield back.

>> i want to talk about that $10 billion number as well. that is for the entire program, not just for section 1705. you said there was a $10 billion to cover potential losses. mr. barton and i both agreed that is not what that $10 billion was designed for. it was to cover interest rates and subsidies. even the $10 billion was appropriated for the section 1705 program. >> it was designed to cover losses in the loan. what the credit subsidy and what the appropriate funds were for work in the event that as we invest in innovative companies, some of those companies might have trouble paying back their loans. >> we have a different view on that.

>> the $10 billion, as i said before, was 1705 and a little bit of 1703. >> we have tax credits, which mandates to states. what is the assumption about the continuation of those other subsidies? when you are calculating the risk, do you assume these other enormous subsidies will be renewed, or do you assume there will be -- they will expire at the law directs? >> the financial health of the company, the assets of the company -- most of the loans our own projects, whether it is a new fabrication plant or a new project. the credit subsidy score goes to the fact that in the event of a problem with the company, the parent company, or the project -- how much with the u.s.

government be paid back? it reflects that uncertainty and the evaluation will ultimately be what the probability of default on the loan. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> mr. secretary, we are going to do a second round. it appears mostly republicans. i would come out of deference, would you like a break of about 50 minutes or would you like us to continue on? >> i will take a break. [laughter] >> we are going to reconvene here at 1:15. >> thank you.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> coming up in a few moments, house debate on a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. on "washington journal" we will focus on the work of the deficit reduction committee. >> for those who say my friends, for those who say we are writing this issue of civil rights, i say to them we are 172 years late. for those who say that this civil-rights program is an infringement on state rights, i say this -- the time has arrived in america for the democratic party to get out of the shadow

of state rights and what into the sunshine of human rights. >> human -- hear humphrey spoke those words before championing the civil rights bill into law. the onetime u.s. senator was widespread than under lyndon johnson and later ran for president in 1968 and lost. we will look at his influence on american politics on "the contenders." live, tonight at 8:00 eastern. condoleezza rice, george mcgovern, randall kennedy, and jim lehrer headlined this weekend as booktv brings you the miami book fair international. join in with your phone calls and tweets on c-span2. it can also look for miami book fair webcasts. >> ethnic nationalism,

tribalism, religious fundamentalism, are four more -- far more powerful than ideology. we are not immune in this country from these forces. when the melting pot has been thrown out and you are preaching multiculturalism, what holds us together? >> mr. buchanan's book is "suicide of a superpower." find the complete schedule online at booktv.org. >> the u.s. house of representatives will vote today on a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. this is a one hour 20 minute portion of today's debate. americans want the federal government to stop excessive government spending and reduce the federal deficit. the last time the budget was balanced was during a clinton administration, when republicans in congress passed the first balanced budget in over 25

years. meanwhile the federal debt has climbed from less than $400 billion in 1970 to over $15 trillion today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. i'd ask members on the minority side, in the rear of the chamber, to take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, president obama has set the wrong kind of new record. the national debt has increased faster under his administration than under any other president in history. america cannot continue to run huge federal budget deficits.

financing federal overspending through continued borrowing threatens to drown americans in high taxes and heavy debt. and it puts a drag on the economy. the federal government now borrows 42 cents for every $1 it pends. no family, no community, no -- spends. no family, no community, no business, no country can sustain that kind of excessive spending. that is the road to insolvency. unfortunately this kind of bad behavior has gone unchecked for so long that it has become the norm. the federal government has been on a decades' long shopping spree, racking up the bills and leaving them for future generations. we need a constitutional mandate to force both the president and congress to adopt annual budgets that spend no more than the government takes in. only a balanced budget constitutional amendment will save us from unending federal deficits. just as both parties have joint

responsibility for the deficit, we must jointly take responsibility for controlling the deficit by passing the balanced budget amendment. we came very close to passing this balanced budget amendment in 1995, falling just one vote short in the senate of the required 2/3 majority. in that congress the amendment was supported by congressman hoyer, now minority whip, congressman clyburn, now assistant democratic leader, and senator joseph biden, now vice president. as then senator biden stated in support of the balanced budget amendment, quote, in recent decades we have faced the problem that we do not seem to be able to solve. we cannot balance our budget or more correctly we will not, the decision to encumber future generations with financial obligations is one that can rightly be considered among the fundamental choices addressed in the constitution, end quote.

congress is way overdue to pass a balanced budget amendment and the american people want it. polls show that 74% are in favor of a balanced budget amendment. it took less than a generation for us to get into this mess, we need a fiscal fix that will now last for generations. if we want to make lasting cuts to federal spending, a constitutional amendment is the only solution. it is our last line of defense against congress' unending desire to overspend and overtax. thomas jefferson believed that, quote, the public debt is the greatest of dangers to be feared. jefferson wished, quote, it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our constitution, taking from the federal government the power of borrowing, end quote. it is time that we listened to thomas jefferson and pass the constitutional amendment to end the federal government's continuous deficit spending. we must solve our debt crisis to save the future.

i want to thank mr. goodlatte, the gentleman from virginia, for introducing the version of the balanced budget amendment we are considering today, and for his tireless work in support of the amendment. since the 1930's, dozens of proposals offered by both democrats and republicans have called for constitutional amendments to address federal budget deficits. we have the opportunity today to take the first step toward making a balanced budget a reality by passing this legislation. the american people have not given congress a blank check. let's demonstrate to the american people that congress can be fiscally responsible and get our economic house in order. borrowing 42 cents for every $1 the government spending and setting a new deficit record is not the road to prosperity. let's put our country first and pass this amendment. mr. speaker, i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves

his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. . mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. ladies and gentlemen, this balanced budget constitutional amendment is one that surprises me and very little surprises me any more. but for us to be seriously on this day, in this time considering an amendment to the constitution of the united states, it would destroy jobs, it will drastically cut social security and medicare gives members of the federal judiciary the right to raise taxes and makes spending decisions for us is relatively shocking to me. and i am very much opposed to

it. i wanted to engage my dear friend, the chairman of the committee the exchange of views on this. let's start off the discussion with this reality. this is not 1995. and that's why so many people that supported the amendment then have changed their minds now, and they will explain this as they go along. and i would like now, mr. speaker, to yield to the former chairman of the constitution subcommittee, jerry nadler, for as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman for yielding, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to this miscombided attempt to amend our -- misguided attempt to amend our constitution. it's bad economic policy and

bad constitutional policy. let's start with the basics. when balancing your budget and paying down your debt is important and we did that under president clinton, a balanced budget every year, regardless of the circumstances, even when facing economic crisis, a natural disaster or terrorist threat is economically did you say. we will shackle future generations to one economic policy preference that does not work at all times and in all situations. in general, the economists tell us in good times you should have a balanced budget and pay down the debt. in bad times when the rescission increases demand on government and tax revenues fall or an emergency, you need to be able to run a deficit. the nonpartisan economists at macroeconomicses tell us if this were in effect next year it would eliminate 15 million jobs and double the

unemployment rate. this would shackle future generations in such situations. one thing we can be sure of, this amendment will devastate the economy, destroy medicaid, medicare and social security, cripple our government's ability to deal with national emergencies to maintain our vital infrastructure ordeal with new challenges as they emerge. -- or deal with new challenges as they emerge. this doesn't allow us to balance the budget the way states or families or businesses do. they are required no more to spend this year's income. families borrow money. if they were told you must pay cash, you want to buy a house, pay cash, you want to buy a car, pay cash, they wouldn't have the house, the car, their spending limit will be much lower. statesboro money. states have balanced budget amendments generally but those amendments refer to their operating budgets. they borrow money for their capital budgets to build

bridges and roads and high waist -- highways. the budget of the united states doesn't make such distinction. this balanced budget amendment says you can never borrow money. you cannot borrow money to build highways, to make investments, to deal with the economy in a recession. it doesn't make sense. similarly, we collect payroll taxes to pay for social security benefits. we collect gasoline taxes to pay for transportation infrastructure. and we carry over unexpended funds in those trust funds from prior years. because they were paid in prior years those revenues would not count. only the expenditures. if you paid $100 in social security taxes in 1960, and drew $100 of benefits in 2011, the deficit would be $100. no matter how much money we have put away for a rainy day we would still be limited to spending no more than that tax

revenues. no one in this room balances their budget that way. what happens when you retire and your income drops? do you not touch your savings because it didn't come during that year? of course not. you are not running a deficit when your expenses that year's income plus savings. i know we have a lot of millionaires here but did anyone pay cash for their home? but this amendment enshrines craze rey bookkeeping and distorted policies into our constitution. so all the chatter about states and families balancing their budget is true, it is irrelevant to what this amendment says. because it's a constitutional amendment it will give federal judges, the life tenure, the power to cut spending and raise taxes. anyone can bring a lawsuit if the budget doesn't balance, if the estimated receipts in his opinion didn't match the estimated tax revenues. and a judge would have to decide whose revenue and

expenditure estimates were correct. and if they were -- if they didn't match in the judge's opinion, the judge would have to decide to increase taxes or to cut expenditures and which expenditures to cut, an unelected judge. how is that possible? it's possible bought of the constitutional amendment. the courts would have the power to enforce it just as the way they do with the rest of the constitution. all revenue measures must originate here. thaws because we are closest to the people, the people's house. this would go as far away from that wide decision as you possibly can by giving that power ultimately to the only part of government that is not elected by the people and that is not accountable at the ballot box, the judiciary. the courts could also order reduction in spending. they could slash military spending or social security or eliminate disaster relief. the voters, the congress would be powerless to stop such decisions. is this really someone's idea

of constitutional conservatism? this is not limited to a requirement that we balance a budget. it imposes a 3/5 supermajority requirement to raise the debt ceiling. while we considered that in 1995, it never occurred to anyone that any member of congress, much less a majority, would allow the united states to default on its debt. it wasn't just considered crazy, it was considered impossible. today, unfortunately, we live in a different way. this time for the first time in history we nearly defaulted on the full faith and credit of the united states. and for the first time in our history saw our credit rating downgraded. and a 3/5 would make it much more difficult. is this balanced budget amendment necessary? we were told that's the only way to force congress to balance a budget. we know that's not true because we balanced the budget under president clinton. we turned in four balanced budgets and ran a surplus. in fact, in 2001, alan greenspan, testifying in favor

of president bush's proposed tax cuts, said we had to reduce taxes because we were going to eliminate, pay down the entire national debt in 10 years and that would be a bad thing, he thought, for various reasons. that was the danger, we pay down but president bush and the republican congress turned that record surplus into record deficits in record time. they did it with two huge tax cuts, two unfunded wars, a prescription drug benefit that wasn't paid for and the rejection of the democratic congress' pay-as-you-go rule. it was all done off the books. and i heard that it was wild spending by the obama administration that's brought about our $15 trillion national debt. well, the truth of the matter is, if you look at nondefense discretionary spending, everything we do other than defense and social security and medicare and veterans' benefits and interest on the debt, adjusted for population and inflation, it hasn't gone up by

a nickel since 2001. defaulting is an irresponsible republican president and an irresponsible republican congress. many of those same republican members who sat quietly when vice president cheney said that deficits don't matter now demand this assault on our founding document instead of doing this through sound fiscal policy. we should not wreck the economy. i urge a no vote and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee of rules for filing under the rule cloifment report to accompany house resolution 470, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 3094, to amend the national labor relations act with respect to representation hearings and the timing of elections of labor organizations under that act.

the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. smith: i yield myself 15 second. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i just want to say to the gentleman from michigan who spoke earlier that i agree with him. today is not 1995. in fact, the deficit is worse. since 1995 the deficit has tripled. it's gone from $5 trillion to $15 trillion which is all the more reason to support this balanced budget amendment to the constitution. mr. speaker, i yield five minutes to my friend and colleague from virginia, mr. goodlatte, who is the sponsor of this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. mr. goodlatte: i thank the chairman for yielding. mr. speaker, this chart tells the story. we have had a number of opportunities over the years to pass balanced budget amendments to the united states of the

constitution. it's not my idea. it's not a new idea. but as we've gone through time we've managed debt. now, as the chairman just noted, in the last 15 years the debt has tripled. but looking ahead, this chart, which shows the ratio of our debt to our gross domestic product and shows that by 2080 it will be nine times, nine times the total economic output of our economy. indicates that what some on the other side have said simply is not the case. congress has not made the tough decisions. we have overpromised the american people, and the fact of the matter is now we need to have something in the constitution that the american people expect and demand of us. and that is a balanced budget amendment. now, we have lots of different balanced budget amendments proposed in this congress. i think 18 i have seen of them thus far. and some ask for more stringent

requirements, which i very much like. limiting the ability to balance this budget by putting a heavier burden on the american people through taxes. capping the amount of money that we spend. certainly something that i also think we need to be cognizant of. others have said, let's take certain things off the table like social security or capital spending or disaster spending. this balanced budget amendment, which passed this house with 300 votes, including 72 democrats, strikes the right balance. it enshrines in our constitution the principle that we should live within our means. but gives future congresses the flexibility to in times of national emergency have some years that are not balanced. that i think is a reality that we have to deal with. but the fact of the matter is that in the last 50 years, that in the last 50 years, since