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 >> the house will vote on the balanced budget to the constitution later today. in a few moments, we will look at today's headline and take your calls live on "washington journal." the