we have not had as much discussion on democrats. anybody who has passed third grade math the says entitlements are not on the table, then you're saying the solution is not on the table. we have $90 to chilerillion. host: we have to leave it there. the speaker: the house will be members will record their votes by electronic device. the prayer will be offered -- the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. eternal god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we come to the end of a week where we have given thanks for their heroism of our astronauts. they answered the call to

service of their nation and of their race, to leave the comfort of home to expand the horizons of us all. we have honored as well the elders of both the senate and this people's house, two men who have served together over a century in this most noble work of representing the people of the united states. now we approach a week during which all americans will gather to remember who we are, a nation generously blessed not only by you, our god, but by courageous ancestors, faithful allies and the best good wishes of people everywhere who long for freedom, glory in the difficult work in government and who do not enjoy the bouty that we are privileged to possess. bless the members of this

assembly and us all that we will be worthy of the call we have been given as americans. help us all to be truly thankful and appropriately generous in our response. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. mr. poe: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five one-minute requests on each side. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise?

mr. poe: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker: without objection, so ordered. mr. poe: mr. speaker, this week marked the passage of an important milestone in american history. but don't break out the confetti and fireworks so quickly. according to the treasury department, our national debt just passed $15 trillion for the first time in history. mr. speaker, here's what $15 trillion looks like. it seems like a lot of money to me. that totals over $48,000 for every man, woman and child across the fruited plain. now, how did we get here? through unchecked, excessive spending by the government. this addiction to spending somebody else's money has got to stop. we must be bowled and cut

unnecessary spending. tough times call for tough actions and we must even do more. congress must pass the balanced budget amendment, force the government to balance its books just like americans are supposed to do. we keep digging ourselves into the dark abyss of debt. maybe we should quick digging so we don't reach greece. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, of all the extreme statements coming out of the republican presidential debates in recent weeks, perhaps none is more alarming that we should, quote, cut foreign aid, even for critical global health and anti-terrorism efforts. we might dismiss this ridiculous assertion as a hail mary from a candidate desperate . mr. price: it drew heavy

applause from the audience, an eager agreement from the rest of the republican field, including the presumptive frontrunner. is this the state of today's republican party, the party of internationalists such as teddy roosevelt, dwight eisenhower and ronald reagan? cut foreign aid to zero? foreign aid has always been an easy target for demagogues, especially during tough economic times. but the reality is it's the most cost-effective instruments -- investments our nation makes. for about 1% of our annual bubblingt it strengthens key allies such aziz real, the palestinian authority, afghanistan and egypt, protects economic development, creates jobs back home. suggestions we should start at zero and ask our allies to come to us hat in hand is simply prepostruss. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. johnson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized.

mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, since 1980, social security has been required to publicly put deceased american personal information into a so-called death master file which was meant to help prevent payment and prevent fraud. nearly anyone can get this information, including identity thieves. identity theft affects not only businesses and taxpayers but grieving families whose suffering is made worse when they learn that someone has been preying on the death of their loved ones. criminals are exploiting this information in order to profit off deceased children by applying for tax refunds. that's just wrong. every year social security puts about 14,000 americans in this death file who aren't even dead. any of us could be put on that list by mistake, a mistake that can result in severe financial

hardship and emotional headache. americans deserve better. so today i am introducing the keeping i.d.'s safe act, to stop the sale of the death master file immediately. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise in support of -- i rise in great sadness to recognize fallen doreville police detective corporal robert shane wilson, a citizen of great distinction in my district, who gave his life on behalf of the people who lived there. responding to a home invasion on november 14, he was tragically involved in a head-on collision with a drunk driver, and he was off duty at the time responding.

an eight-year veteran, officer wilson was just 27 years old. he was a member of the swat team. he served his community courageously and honorably and was very well liked and respected by his colleagues and fellow officers. he was a loving husband, father, brother and son from a family deep in law enforcement. he loved to play drums and piano. he composed music and always had a smile on his face. all georgians are affected by this tragedy, but our thoughts and prayers go out especially to his family, friends and colleagues. robert shane wilson was one of the best and he'll be greatly missed. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask permission to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, you're recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. when the liberal democratic extremists took control of the congress in 2007, the unemployment rate was 4.6%.

when republicans took back control of the house in january, 2011, the unemployment rate had jumped to 9%. under liberal democrat control, 6.9 million morn americans became unemployed. so now we have 13.9 million unemployed americans who have been ignored by the liberals in washington, higher taxes, record spending and bigger government have failed to create jobs or boost economic growth. put simply this, the economy is growing too slowly to replace the millions of jobs lost. g.d.p. and growth in the first quarter of 2011 fell to 1.8%. in the second quarter it was.2 -- 2.3%. instead of expanding the size of government, republicans are committed to a pro-growth economic agenda that will put america back to work, and i urge people to go to america's job creators, jobs.gop.gov to

see the plan republicans have to create jobs. we have passed over 20 bills that have gone to the senate and no action is being taken on them. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. ellison: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. ellison: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i come to the floor today to support and urge us to support kenyan military that has gone into somalia to set up a corridor of safety for the somali people and to help push back and fight against al shabaab. it is a terrorist organization in somalia. and because of the general chaos in somalia, mr. speaker, al shabaab has been able to do two very bad things. one is they, because of the instability they create, they have caused massive refugee problems into kenya which is

why the kenyan military had to go into somalia to try to stop that. but they also created chaos in the red sea through piracy and also sponsored terrorism in other african nations like uganda. at the same time, mr. speaker, they are an -- attracting nuisance to every bad guy and they attract international terrorists to somalia which further destabilizes that nation. after 20 years of chaos, the somali people deserve, deserve some stability and the kenyan troops that are there are helping to bring that. the united states and the international community need to step up and help offer support for those kenyan troops, mr. speaker. let me say we need to -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. ellison: let me say this is the time to step up and help the kenyan community help our country and the rest of the world. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. tonko: america's middle class are determined, hardworking middle class is challenging congress. will congress respond to our middle class? we in the middle class are growing increasingly aware of the statistics, the wealth in this top 1% has grown exponentially. 275% over the same time frame, america's middle class that has seen its wealth flatline. it's diminished like 15% to 20%. that is unsustainable. america's middle class knows it. they know that we need to invest in our middle class, empower the purchasing power, raise our children, invest in their education and higher education, invest in health care, invest in public safety, invest in job creation and job

retention, invest in research that equals jobs. that is the commitment that they're asking for. they know it's within the grasp of congress to fix it. they know increasingly the american dream is growing outside their grasp. we need to go to work, provide jobs, the dignity for our middle class, we need to solve the problems of middle america. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. woolsey: november -- ms. richardson: all across america, americans need help. they need help to stand, to sit, to put on their shoes, to go to the restroom and even some to take their last breath. while there are those who are sitting by the bed side of those people, we call them in-home health care workers who

oftentimes in this country barely make even a minimum wage themselves and if they needed the very care they were providing, they could probably not afford it. as this congress decides and looks at the joint committee's decisions and proposals before us, let's not go against those working people, thousands of people who don't even have enough to take care of their own families. the decisions can be done better, but they certainly should not be on the backs of working people and those who care for our americans. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 470 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 93, house resolution 470, resolved, that at any time

after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union 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 first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on education and work force. . after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on education and the work force now printed in the bill. the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against the

committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the of a substitute. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to

final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for one hour. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. so ordered. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, house resolution provides for a structured rule providing for consideration of h.r. 3094, the work force democracy and fairness act. and with that i reserve the balance of my time the -- i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i thank the

gentlelady for the customary 30 minutes. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to the rule on the underlying bill. mr. speaker, with this rule and underlying bill, congress continues months of inaction on job growth, months of ignoring real solutions, choosing instead to use our economic struggles as an excuse to push partisan and ideological legislation. the american people deserve jobs now. rather than bills aimed only at stoking the fires and antagonizing political opponents. it's time to stop the games and seek compromise for the betterment of our nation. a middle class tax increase is looming. woo the extension of the payroll tax, many middle class families earning $70,000, $80,000 a year will be forced to pay over $1,000 a year more in taxes. apparently the republicans believe that the government knows how to spend their money better than american families. as a businessman and

entrepreneur i'm proud to have created many jobs and many businesses. i meet with the businesses in my district on a regular basis. not a single business has raised this issue as any kind of impediment to job growth, any kind of impediment to getting the economy going again. this is simply a nonrelated subject that pursues a long-time agenda to destroy the ability of workers to organize. this bill represents the ohioization of america. just as republicans attempted in the state of ohio, house republicans are simply union busting. but what we saw happen in ohio where ohioans across the ideological spectrum overwhelmingly said no to this kind of anti-worker agenda. and the american people reject it as well. this bill's singular goal is to shut down workplace elections t. would overturn the proposed national labor relations board rule. it would modernize the union election process and avoid delays. but instead of creating efficiency in government, the

workplace election prevention actually mandates inefficiency and makes inefficiency the norm rather than the exception. the bill puts in place 35-day delays in holding elections after filing pe significances. the bill includes no limit on how long the elections can be delayed. in the case of workplace election day delay is a critical issue. the intent to delay an election is to get anti-union employers a chance to prevent workers from organizing. despite republicans' professed outrage over frivolous lawsuits and tort reform and many other areas, h.r. 3094 incentivizes a mountain of litigation for the sole purpose of stalling workplace elections. this creates a massive backlog of cases, including frivolous ones, all on the taxpayers' dime. republicans don't seem to have a problem with trial lawyers as long as they are suing unions. this bill even allows managers to stuff the ballot boxes of employer elections.

mr. speaker, i'm sure many of us in this body here are following -- our state redistricting processes to see how various districts across the country are gerrymandered. what this bill would allow employers to do would effectively gerrymander what the negotiating unit is across the company. if there is a group of employees interested in forming a union, it would give the employer the ability to say no. and decide on what the electoral body s what is the electorate. choosing their own electorate. as too many members of congress attempt to do through the redistricting process, choosing their electorate to try to rig the election against the workers. this bill is the latest assault on workers' rights and is again typical of this do-nothing congress. the republicans have been fixated on attacking the national labor relations board, the board that is in place to strike a balance between labor and employers by cutting the agency's funding, by holding up

new appointments, and now by reversing a rule on notice posting to inform employees of their rights. mr. speaker, the people are wise to see what's going on here in congress. every week we are in session we see a parade of special interest bills paraded on the house floor while taxes for middle class families, risk going up because republicans believe the government knows how to spend their money better than the american people. the big energy companies have got numerous exemptions from the clean air and clean water act. the rest of us got pollution asthma and other illness. look, is it possible to create jobs by lowering standards? it is. if you want to remove workplace safety standards, you can create jobs. unsafe jobs. you want to reduce the minimum wage to $2 an hour, you can create jobs, $2 an hour jobs, is that the america we want? is that the america we want for our children and grandchildren? we can do better and we must do better. why are we here? when will americans get the job bill that we desperately need to the floor of the house of representatives? you got some ideas to create

jobs, let's get them out, put them in front of us, discuss them, let's start from preventing the payroll taxes from going up for middle class americans. it's obvious why this body is at the approval rating that's actually lower than communism now and lower than president nixon when he resigned. it's time for this congress to get to work to provide solutions, to help get this economy going. or it's going to be time to get a new congress. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. our colleagues across the aisle are constantly reminding the american people of what a great economy we had when president clinton was president. why did we have such a great economy? because six of the eight years that he was president we had a republican-controlled congress. the first two years of his administration was a disaster in this country. then we had six years of the republicans in control. they balanced the budget.

they reduced spending, and did we have a horrible economy? did we have horrible workplace situations? no. they want to lead you to believe that with republicans in control and passing republican bills that we'll somehow or other destroy this country. that is not going to happen. under republican control we have generally a booming economy. but not under democrats. i now would like to yield three minutes to my distinguished colleague from south carolina, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, dr. foxx. i'd like to submit to the record the following email from mr. solomon acting chief council -- counsel of the nlrb. mr. speaker, there is no question that the nlrb is not under attack. employees' freedom is under attack. the workplace fairness concept is under attack, but certainly not the nlrb.

there is no question that the nlrb was thought to be an impartial referee for employers and employees. but that has not been the case. they have been anything other than impartial. and their email trail will show that in just a few seconds. but despite the fact that today we have two million more unemployed americans, the nlrb continues to choose sides in the disputes as opposed to being a referee. their lack of judgment and common sense has been magnified and it can be seen clearly in the email conversations within the department of the nlrb. mr. solomon apparently thought the following was funny despite his current efforts which threatens more than 1,000 jobs in the great state of south carolina and in my district in north charleston. emailing a colleague regarding criticism from a mag article, this is what -- magazine

article, this is what he said. i want you to hear this clearly. i'm going to say it slowly because we need to understand and appreciate the nlrb has lost their marbles without any question. his quote, the article gave me a new idea. you go to geneva and i get a job with airbus, mr. solomon said. we screwed up the u.s. economy and now we can tackle europe. let me repeat that. because this is the chief counsel. at the nlrb. stating very clearly, his intentions and his lack of humor. the article gave me a new idea. saying to one of his colleagues, you go to geneva, i'll get a job with airbus. we have screwed up the u.s. economy and now we can tackle europe. only in an alternate universe is

this funny or make any sense whatsoever. it is no secret that the nlrb's reckless actions have a direct impact on my district. without any question. but it is also no secret many on both sides of the aisle have recognized the danger of those actions. earlier this year the house passed my bill, h.r. 2587, which removes the ability from the nlrb to destroy jobs because simply put they cannot be trusted to do anything other than undermine the fragile recovery here in america. unfortunately, senator reid has done with my bill with what he has done with the other 22 job creating measures. nothing. miss forks: i yield the gentleman another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, dr. foxx. in an effort to appease the president and his union supporters, the nlrb has gone

off the tracks and begun proposing harmful rules, left, right, up, down. it is ridiculous. one of these rules is why we are here today, an effort to allow for quicky union elections. this rule quite simply puts the rights of all employees at risk. by allowing as little as seven to 10 days for employees to decide whether they want to join a union or not, the nlrb is preventing many from having the time to do the necessary research and make a good decision on whether or not they join a union. currently the average time is 35 to 40 days, a reasonable amount of time. i will not yield. no, sir. this is a significant difference. going from 35 to 40 days down to

seven to 10 days is ridiculous. 30 seconds. ms. foxx: i yield the gentleman another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. scott: thank you, sir. thank you, dr. foxx. the new rule also makes it impossible for anyone to challenge the bargaining unit chosen by the union. dividing employees and raising employers' labor costs. we stand here today with an opportunity. we can either allow the nlrb to continue to create bad policy and bad rules, or we can put america and the job creators back on the right track. the question cannot be simpler and the choice has been made easy because of the inability of the nlrb to do what they were chosen to do, which was to be the impartial referee on issues between employers and employees, and i find that challenging. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from colorado. million polis: thank you, mr. speaker. it's my honor to yield five minutes to the gentleman from california, the ranking member of the education and work force committee, mr. miller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. miller: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. miller: i thank the gentleman for yielding. 75 years ago this nation decided it is a matter of right and matter of law that the decision of whether or not workers wanted to union belong to those workers. and this congress passed the national labor relations act. to give workers this right and an election to decide. . ever since that time they believe the companies control all of the rights in the workplace. they believe that the workers should take and do what they say and that's the end of the discussion. and this has been a battle throughout the economic history of this country since the

passage of the national labor relations act. but the fact of the matter is that when unions decide -- when workers decide they want an organization, they go out and talk to their fellow workers, they form a union and they have an election. but what we now see is the companies constantly trying to insert themselves into that worker controlled process by trying to disrupt the elections of those workers and trying to keep them from exercising their rights under the law. and this is the goal of this very anti-worker, anti-family legislation. it would end the collective bargaining rights for working people in this country. because it would so obscure the process that you can't get to the election that the workers are guaranteed under this law. this is wisconsin and ohio all wrapped up into one. this is where they can't control the governorship or legislature, where they made

the attempt after the election to take away workers' rights at work. where they can't do that they now seek to do in the halls of congress. to so change the process and to discriminate the rights of workers so that in fact the process ceases to exist. how do they do that? they do that by having endless delays. why are endless delays important to employers? so that they can hire union busting law firms to come in and intim indicate and teach employers how to intimidate workers. because don't forget that the employer has the right from the moment they're served notice to have meetings in the workplace where they threaten the workers with the loss of jobs, where they threaten the workers with being fired, or they threaten the workers for sending work to china or elsewhere, or they threaten the workers that they won't get the promotion, where they change the workers' shift time from maybe day shift to graveyard shift and keep rotating them around to show them that they're in control

and the workers have no rights. and if they can do it for seven days, you have a chance. if you can do it for 10 days you may have a better chance. if you do it for 2,000 days, you can kill the drive for union. you can intimidate the workers. how else do they do it? when workers decide among themselves that we want a unit within this company, within this factory to represent us. this law now says, this bill now says that the employer can come in and rearrange the members of the unit that would have that election. they can stuff the ballot box. they can pick your candidate to stand for election. it doesn't sound very democratic to me, but that's what they get to do under this bill that's proposed. the workers no longer get to decide as the law says they get to decide. the workers no longer get to decide as the supreme court says they get to decide. the employer gets to decide. the arrogance of these people

to suggest that they should pick, they should pick the leaders of the workers, that they should pick the organization of the workers who have a right to organize. so they get to delay the election. they get to -- they encourage and provide for and define the right to continue to file frivolous lawsuits so that this process never ends. you can bankrupt these workers if they try to run head on head with big law firms that specialize in this, that travel around the country to take away the rights at work. what does this mean? this means underpinning the basic organization in the american workplace today that speaks on behalf of the middle class. this is from the organizations that brought you the great american weekend. this is the organizations that brought you the eight-hour day. this is the organization that brought you overtime pay if you work longer than eight hours. this is the organization that brought you sick leave. this is the organization that

brought women their rights at work. this is the organization that makes safe workplaces. this is the organization that provided for the first time pensions and retirement benefits for workers. any wonder why these corporations, why the chamber of commerce is so set against this? because they don't want to do this any more. they want to ship the jobs to china. they want no minimum wage. they want a subminimum wage. they want no rights for workers. how do the american families survive that? they've already offloaded all of the health care costs they possibly could. they offloaded all of the pecks costs they possibly could on the backs of these workers. now they want to take away the rights to organization. we should not allow that to happen, not in this -- rights to organize. we should not allow that happen, not in this country. we should defeat this very anti-family piece of legislation. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, regular order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

mr. polis: i did yield an additional 30 seconds. mr. lewis: i'd like to say -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. polis: i yield an additional 30 seconds. mr. miller: there was not a single republican vote in the clinton era. once again -- ms. foxx: mr. speaker, i the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i now would like to yield a southern gentleman who understands the rules from tennessee, dr. roe, for four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for four minutes. mr. roe: dr. foxx, i thank you for yielding. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill. our country is in the middle of a jobs crisis, no question. both sides understand that. the national unemployment rate has hovered around 9% for the longest time in my lifetime and in tennessee it's even higher, 9.8%.

millions of american families are struggling as we speak. amidst of all this uncertainty, the house, with bipartisan support, has passed 22 jobs bills. right down this hallway here, this week the u.s. senate worked so hard they voted two times on two federal judges. that's all the work that took place with 22 -- many of them bipartisan bills passed, mr. speaker. i think root now we've seen in this country the -- i think right now we've seen in this country the holdup of the keystone pipeline which would provide us as much oil from canada as we're getting from opec right now. 1.3 million barrels a day would essentially relieve us and help our national security and create thousands, thousands of jobs. so why are we here today? what happens currently? mr. speaker, i grew up in union household. my father was a union worker at

that time, united rubble worker union. he worked in a factory and made shoe heels. we have a right in this country, employees have a right to organize and to vote any way or not. what's happening right now? well, currently in 2010, 92% of the national union elections were held under a voluntary election agreement. when they had an election, 92%, 8% went to the nlrb election official. at which time they had to sit down together. that's what happens to agree on the rules of the election. and as mr. scott pointed out, the nlrb is supposed to be a fair ash tore. like you play in a basketball game and you go to one's home gym you expect the referees to carry out a fair game for both sides so both sides could have a chance to give their side of the story. so in june of this year what happened? the nlrb issued a rule that would say that an employer has

seven days to find an attorney to present their side of the case. and remember in this just the description of this, there are over 400 pages of rules that you have to go to or information that the lawyer has to go through and have seven days to get that done and an employee would have 10 days whether they want a union or not. and they have that right. today 70 -- almost 70% of the elections held, the union wins. and what's the average time of an election? 31 days. so that means if you wanted to vote on the first of october of 2011, the average time by the end of that month, 70%, almost three out of four would be picked, yes, we want a union. so what happens after this? after this 10 days? the second thing the union wants is the amount of information that's required that an employee give up. and what would that be? well, that would be personal information including your work schedule, your home address, phone numbers, etc.

right now what we want, what this bill says is that the employee gets to decide, just their name and what other way they want contact. i think that's fair. i think that's right. let the employee decide. mr. speaker, also, what my colleague from california spoke of is a bargaining unit. for over two decades the nlrb has used the standard to decide, to define what a bargaining unit is. this is a new definition. we have done this for almost 30 years in this country, and we want this to change. i think right now, i believe, as i understand the law it's against the law right now, as an employer for over three decades, to threaten a worker. you can't do that now. it's against the law. so this bill that we are defining allows 14 days -- has my time -- ms. foxx: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. roe: i thank the

gentlelady. this bill would give the employer 14 days on a pre-election hearing to find representation. it would allow the workers 35 days to get the information that they need to make an informed decision to vote in a secret ballot so that they can decide in an unintimidated so the employer or the union can't intimidate this worker. it would allow the employee, the worker, to decide what information -- not the union -- but you a allow the employee what -- but allow the employee what information they want to give up. this is a commonsense bill. this basically redefines what's been going on for three decades. i respect the right of anyone to belong to a union if they want to. as i said, i lived in a union household. but i believe this will allow both sides a free and fairway to decide whether they want to -- free and fair way to decide whether they want to. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. crowley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is

recognized for two minutes. mr. crowley: i thank the gentleman from colorado for yielding me time, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i played a little basketball in my day. you know, i grew up on a schoolyard and we choose -- we chose teams. we didn't need referees quite frankly because we chose teams fairly. you don't need referees here either if you have the opportunity to pick the other team. you're the a team but you get to say who is going to play. you don't need referees ballgames you know what the outcome is going to be -- because you know what the outcome is going to be. now, i have heard that the job losses in this country are because of president obama and the health care bill. and i heard that the job loss in this country is because of speaker pelosi and harry reid and all the bad legislation. and i've heard it's because we have a department of education. and i've heard it's because we have a department of commerce. and i've heard it's because we have a department of nlrb.

oops. i'm sorry. i forgot. you got me. the nlrb. well, mr. speaker, i rise to say in strong opposition to this legislation. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have a common refrain that they want to make the federal government more efficient, work better for the american people and move obstacles to create something that i am very much in favor of . but this bill will do exactly the opposite. in fact, repealing the nlrb's proposed rule will actually make them less efficient, more burdensome and introduce costly delays to a process that is already got abuse. so i think the american people deserve to know why did the g.o.p. prioritize this bill and bring it to the floor for debate. the answer is pretty clear.

it's a thinly veiled effort to make it all but impossible for american workers to organize in labor unions. that's it. it's an effort to place ideology over practicality, and it has nothing to do -- mr. polis: i yield the gentleman one minute. mr. crowley: it has nothing to do with job creation. over 300 days here on the floor and yet not a single jobs bill has been offered by my republican colleagues to put americans back to work. and instead, once again they have put on the floor a bill to hurt the american worker, the american family. have you no shame? is there no end to this? is there any other departments we can get rid of in these few remaining days of this session? put americans back to work. stop beating up on the fair players on this playing field.

put americans back to work. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to remind my colleague from new york as well as all our colleagues across the aisle that republicans have passed over 20 bills this session that would create jobs and bills that would bring down the cost of gasoline. those are the two things that my constituents are most concerned about, and if our colleagues across the aisle are talking to their constituents or more importantly listening to their constituents, they would know that's what their constituents are concerned about also. however, those bills are tied up in the democrat-controlled senate. i now would like to yield five minutes to my distinguished colleague from south carolina who did such a wonderful job on c-span this morning, mr. gowdy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for five minutes. mr. gowdy: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentlelady from north carolina for her

leadership on this issue and so many other issues on the education and work force committee. mr. speaker, when so many of our fellow citizens are hurting, when so many of our fellow citizens are looking for work, when so many of our fellow citizens are striving to meet their familial and so sital obligations -- societal obligations and all they want is a job and as my friend, tim scott, my friend and colleague from charleston, so eloquently put this morning, the nlrb thinks it's a joke, mr. speaker, a joke. they're making jokes about it. . airbus is not another plane manufacturer, they are the direct competitor to boeing. virtually everyone is familiar with the most glaring example of nlrb overreach which is the complaint they filed against boeing. and not a single example of job

loss has been cited. not a single worker has lost a single benefit in the state of washington. nevertheless, the nlrb sued boeing and they seek to have boeing mothball the facility in north charleston and displace 1,000 workers and return the work to a union state. that is exhibit annlrb's ack -- in nlrb's activist. as a former prosecutor, they have become a sycophant of big labor. while knowing is exhibit a, it is by no means, mr. speaker, the only evidence of an activist politically motivated agenda. currently union elections, mr. speaker, take place on average within 31 days. of the filing of an election petition. additionally, unions are

victorious more often than not. but unions want more. so they persuaded the nlrb to propose sweeping changes to the rules and regulations governing the election process, shifting the balance of power even further towards those employees seeking unionization. by promoting rush elections and ruling that elections can take place in as little as 10 days, mr. speaker, the nlrb severely limits the opportunity for workers to hear all sides of the issue and make an informed decision. additionally, employers would only have seven days to retain legal counsel and decipher the complex lab brint of federal labor law before presenting their case before an nlrb hearing officer. education and work force committee chairman john kleine smartly introduced h.r. 3094, the work force democracy and fairness act to level the playing field. this legislation requires no union election occur in less

than 35 days, thus granting all parties the ability to present their arguments and ensuring workers have the ability to reach an informed decision. nr 3094 acknowledges that full and complete information is treasured when employees are contemplating how they will vote. ironically, mr. speaker, some unions have already endorsed president obama's re-election bid. which is well-nigh a year off. clearly they believe they need the time, the 12 months, to inform their members. but somehow a week is enough for employers to inform their employees of all salient facts. before an election. the hypocrisy and blind advocacy towards big labor has to stop, mr. speaker. the purpose of the national labor relations board is to enforce the national labor relations act. and the purpose of the national labor relations act is to balance the rights of employers,

employees, and the general public. the act is not calculated to drive up union membership. because they happen to be a loyal constituency of the democrat party. because the nlrb through its filing a proposed rules and regulations has lost all pretense of objectivity, mr. speaker, and labor issues, fair evenhanded pieces of legislation like chairman kline's work force and advocacy are necessary. i encourage my colleagues to help us protect american jobs, to stand up for equal access to justice, to promote a level playing field. i encourage my colleagues to support the rule and support the underlying bill. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you.

mr. speaker, when the sun rose over the country this morning a lot of americans got out of bed to go to a job that doesn't pay them enough to support their family. they are working part-time to pay full-time bills. a lot of other americans who have good jobs, good full-time jobs, woke up this morning and worried if this was going to be the day they got their pink slitch and got their layoff notice. and far too many americans, at least 15 million of them, got up this morning and didn't have a job to go to. 90% of the people surveyed, in a recent survey in this country, said the american dream is either dead or on life support. because the deal in the country has always been if you work as hard as you can and do your fair share, then the country will give you the opportunity to move your family forward. people don't buy that anymore. they don't believe it anymore.

and so what do we do about it here this morning? we are having a debate about a bill that changes the rules for the way people decide whether or not to have a union in their workplace. this is an important consideration. it's a worthy consideration. i think the bill's a very bad one. but it's a credible debate to have. but it's the wrong debate to have. members of our caucus have gone out over the last month and spoken to thousands of small businesspeople, the real job creators in this country, who create two out of every three jobs created in america, and here's what they have said. we are not hiring people largely because we don't have enough customers and if we think we do have enough customers, we can't get loans from banks that we bailed out with our tax money. that's what we ought to be discussing here today. the other side will say no, no,

these small businesspeople aren't hiring because of their deathly fear of regulations. well, here's what the bureau of labor statistics says. when they interviewed employers who laid people off in 2010 and said why did you lay people off? about 40% of those employers said, we laid people off because we don't have enough customers. .2 said they laid people off because of regulations. that's what the facts are. how you get more customers for businesss? one idea would be to put construction workers back to work building schools and libraries and roads and bridges. so they would be in the restaurants and buy in the stores. there is a bill pending before the house to do that. the president's jobs bill, but we are not voting on that today. we have something better to do. another way would be to avoid a

massive tax increase on the middle class in this country. i would ask for an additional minute. i thank the speaker, i thank my friend. if we don't act by january 1, there will be a $1,500 tax increase on every middle class family in this country. the president says we should be postpone that tax increase so people have more money to spend, but we are not voting on that bill today. we have something more important to do. how about the idea of a tax cut for small businesses that hire people? that's in the president's jobs bill. but we are not voting on that today because we have something more important to do. how about saying to teachers who have been laid off from the classroom, firefighters and police officers not on the job because of cutbacks in local government, how about save -- saving their jobs so they can serve their communities and spend more of the stores and

restaurants and on products in this country? that's in the president's jobs bill. but we are not voting on that because we have something more important to do. there's a reason why 90% of the people in this country think that congress is not doing a good job. it's because the leadership of this congress, the republican leadership of this congress, is voting on the wrong bill at the wrong time and today's another sad chapter in that reality. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. we'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time is reserved. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the underlying bill, h.r. 3094, the so-called work force democracy and fairness act. since the start of the 112th congress there's been a certain faction guiding the republican

majority undertaking what amounts to a full scale attack on america's working families and america's working class. and against the bedrock principles that have helped create america's middle class. this latest effort is more of the same, the so-called work force democracy and fairness act is another piece of legislation that weakens the rights and protections that workers have long and hard fought to obtain. section 9-b of the national labor relations act gives employees the right to organize, quote, in an appropriate unit, giving them choice on how best to bargain with their employer. that's all this is about. when an employer group, employee group organizes, all it requires is they sit down across their employees, and bargain, and talk to them about terms and conditions of employment and benefits. what this bill would do is establish a one-size-fits-all

approach to organizing. forcing together employees who have very little in common. and making it much more difficult to organize. that's gerrymandering, basically, to protect employer interests, plain and simple. this bill doesn't stop at changing existing rules, however. this bill would overturn proposed rules that have not even been finalized by the national labor relations board. the nlrb has proposed practical rules, modernizing and streamlining the union election process. the proposed rules are genuine improvements over the existing procedures and designed to encourage the use of technology and discourage unnecessary litigation to save taxpayer dollars. i was an ironworker for 18 years, union ironworker. very proud of that fact. i was a union president. i also was involved in in very many union organizing drives not only for my union but carpenters and stagehands, wardrobe workers, and the nlra, the act

is set up to reduce the likelihood of unrest. of work force disputes. it's really to help business and workers. and to reduce that economic conflict. this bill will have the opposite effect. this bill will actually increase the likelihood of labor disputes. and we have seen in this country a great disparate between the haves and have-nots. this is going to make matters worse. instead of putting people to work, this is going to cause strife and reduce the efficiency and productivity of america's workers. this is shameful. we should think about strengthening -- all these union workers, this is the middle class in america. you are destroying the middle class in america. you are increasing that disparate between the haves and have-nots. we got to do better than this. the american people deserve it.

mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i will continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time is reserved. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i want to inquire if the gentlelady has any additional speakers. ms. foxx: we do not. i'm prepared to close if the gentleman from colorado is prepared. mr. polis: i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, the middle class in this country doesn't need a higher payroll tax, more dirty air, dirty water, fewer workers' rights. and they certainly don't need more partisan gridlock in this do-nothing congress. yet that is what is being offered here today. the american people and the american economy need jobs, need optimism. our nation needs to know that we are working to ensure american competitiveness and access to hope and opportunity. to work to ensure that kids get

the best education in the world so we can drive the economic engine of today and tomorrow, invent new technology,propel future generations of american ingenuity and leadership. this kind of political gridlock in this do-nothing congress do not help america move forward. this bill's singular goal is to delay and ultimately prevent workers from voting in workplace elections. these rights have helped to create the middle class in the last century. in recent decades the erosion of these rights have lowered paychecks for families, led to jobs outsourcing overseas, and wide income disparities in our society. . our environmental workplace laws that have been around for decades is the reason our economy is bad? of course not. let's talk about preventing a looming increase on taxes in the middle class. i encourage the supercommittee and if it need be stand-alone

legislation to ensure we can keep payroll taxes at their current level. it's time for congress to take up the president's jobs act which includes extending the middle-class tax cut. the american jobs act, which republicans still can refuse to consider, includes job-creating proposals, including rebuilding our schools, tax breaks for small businesses to create jobs and modernizing our air traffic control system. it's time for this congress to stand up for the american people, to offer solutions, to get serious about getting our economy back on track instead of just scoring political points that appeal to the base. i urge a no vote on this rule and the underlying bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i want to point out that i neglected to say earlier in response to my

colleague who said we hadn't passed any house bills that those were bipartisan bills that passed. every one of the jobs bills that we passed has received bipartisan support, and the american people want us to be bipartisan, and i hope they have noticed in the debate today that the badmouth of this bill has not come from this side of the aisle. we need to reduce government red tape as a way to help job creation. we are trying to reinstate the traditional standards for union organizing elections and ensuring that employees and employer voices are heard. therefore, i urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and the underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. the chair lays before the house the following communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in twafe of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives -- 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the house of representatives, the clerk received the message from the secretary of the senate at 8:52 a.m., that the senate passed with amendment, h.r. 2056, that the senate passed with an amendment, h.r. 1059 and h.r.

3321, that the senate passed senate 99. with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table the bill h.r. 394 with senate amendments thereto that the house concur in senate amendment number 1 and concur in senate amendment number 2 with the amendment i have placed at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the by title the bill, senate amendments and the proposed house amendment. the clerk: h.r. 394, an act to amend title 28, united states code, to clarify the jurisdiction -- mr. smith: mr. speaker, without objection, i ask that the reading be dispensed with. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the reading is dispensed with. is there objection to the original request of the gentleman from texas? without objection, the request is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: i ask for immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 1637, an act to clarify appeal time limits and civil actions to which united states officers or employees are parties. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to consideration of the bill? without objection, the bill is read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to section 2 of house resolution 466, the question is to pass house joint resolution 2 by the clerk will report by title. the clerk: house joint resolution 2, proposing a balanced budget amendment to the constitution of the united states. the speaker pro tempore: when proceedings were postponed on thursday, november 17, 2011, two hours, 42 1/2 minutes of debate remained on the motion. the gentleman from virginia,

mr. goodlatte, has one hour and 27 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, has one hour and 15 minutes remaining. without objection, the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, will control the time of the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. who yields time? the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on house joint resolution 2, as amended, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, yesterday we began debate on the balanced budget amendment. debate that i hoped culminates today with a bipartisan twirts vote in its favor. the american people of all political stripes and from all walks of life demand we pass this amendment. recently polling by cnn indicates that a constitutional amendment to require a balanced

federal budget gashers more than 70% support among men -- gashers more than 70% of among men, women, whites, every race, every income level from every part of the country. why do americans support a balanced budget amendment? because they understand that unending federal deficits recognize our economy and steal prosperity from future generations. 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. this runaway government spending paralyzes the job market, erodes confidence among america's employers and has caused the worst economic recovery since the great depression. the balanced budget amendment is not an untested idea. 49 states has some form of a

balanced budget requirement. we are overdue to adopt a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. we must stop the flood of deficit spending that threatens to drown future generations of americans in a sea of debt. i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. may i be granted as much time as i may consume? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: i thank you. and i welcome the continuation of this discussion about an incredibly important proposal. we gather here today to determine whether we should have one more amendment to the 27 amendments to the constitution that have been formed over -- since the last

part of the 18th century when our country was formed. and i was reviewing something that a former chairman of our committee said in the 104th congress, and i refer to the distinguished gentleman from illinois, henry hyde, who said that in effect that he realized that the republican congress when he was there would not be able to balance the budget without using retiree fund in the social security trust fund. and i'm -- i think i am being assured in this debate that that will not happen in the present time. and here's what henry hyde said, and i quote -- he said, if you exclude receipts from

the revenue that is received by the social security system from computing the total revenues of the government, if you take it out of the equation, then the cuts that are necessary to reach a balanced budget become draconian. they become 22% to 30%, and you know we cannot and will not cut programs that we want to continue by 22% to 30%. you have to compute social security receipts and determining the income of this government so that the cuts you make to balance the budget are livable and not impossible. henry hyde was right then and his statement is correct now. under the proposal that we are

discussing today, our nation's savings, the money taken out of every america's paycheck could be looted in effect to pay for other things and to balance the budget and it would take the trust out of the social security trust fund. the ryan budget would cut social security's service delivery below current maintenance levels by more than $10 billion over 10 years, including a $400 million cut in 2012. this sort of drastic cutting will prove devastating to seniors as more aging boomers retire to rely on field officers' benefit claims,

processing, disability determinations and hearing decisions over the next 10 years. so i appeal to the kinder nature of my friends in the house. please -- please recognize that henry hyde was correct then and he is correct now. we cannot achieve what this amendment proposes to do without going into social security receipts, and i think that that would be objectionable and unwise on the part of all of us here and be unacceptable to the citizens of our country. and i would reserve my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the time is reserved. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. gibbs.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. gibbs: mr. speaker, as a member of the balanced budget caucus i rise in strong support of the balanced budget amendment we are taking up on the floor today. i heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this is not the time to take this up, but now is exactly what we should be taking up. in 1995 a balanced budget amendment passed the house with bipartisan support only to lose by one vote in the united states senate. then, the national debt was $4.8 trillion. this week the national debt hit $15 trillion. we have added $10 trillion to our debt in 16 years. that is $10 trillion in debt that threatens our job growth, our national security and our sovereignty and our nation's children, and that's $10 trillion in debt that could have been avoided had the balanced budget amendment passed. we simply must stop spending money we don't have. and if we are going to get our economy a chance to grow and create jobs. pass attempts like graham rudman hollings, pay as --

gramm-rudman-hollings, pay-as-you-go, we must hold congress to the fire and pass a balanced budget amendment today. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'd like unanimous consent to ask that jerry nadler of new york become the manager of this amendment from this point on. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. conyers: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment, while superficially appealing, is one of the most damaging things we could do to the constitution of the united states. and yes, it is true if you ask people today if you think we

should have a balanced budget, they say yes. if we ask them, do you think we should have an amendment requiring a balanced budget in the constitution if it meant a cut in social security, they say no. if it meant a cut in medicare, they say no. if it meant in cutting other essential services, they say no. and when you probe further you find it's a very damaging provision. . economists tell us that in a recession you want to increase the government spending temporarily. you have to increase it because unemployment insurance payouts go up, food stamp payouts go up, and if you decrease the spending it reduces the amount of products that people want in society and position the amount of money and make the recession into a dregs. in good time in a recession you

should run a deficit. in a long period of time the budget should be bound. but if you attempt to balance the budget during a recession, you generate a much worse loss of jobs. and that's why you don't want this. or you shouldn't want this. secondly, amendment -- this amendment is not self-enforcing. all it says is, outrage shall not exceed -- outlays should not exceed receipts and congress should pass legislation. if someone thinks that the estimates are wrong and outlays are going to exceed receipts, then you go to court. and then a court has to decide whether that's correct. a court has to decide whether the estimates are correct. and if the court decides the estimates are not correct, then the court has to say, all right, it has a choice, it can say this is political, we'll exercise judicial restraint as the gentleman from virginia said yesterday, in which case it won't enforce the amendment and the amount is meaningless. or the court will say, ok, we'll order a tax increase or order an

expenditure cut, in which case you have those judges making political decisions which i don't think we want to see. thirdly, a balanced budget amendment starting where we are now with a huge deaf that's been accumulated over the years, means you have to make drastic cuts in social security and medicare and veterans' benefits. some people say on the other side of the aisle, that won't be true because they don't count. but, yes, they count. the amount says outlays. outlays are defined as all expenditures other than debts. social security is not a debt. the courts have held that. medicare is not a debt. there is no contractual right. which means if you are going to reduce outlays, social security is right in it. if you are not going to reduce social security, you have to reduce a lot of other things by much more. so this is a dagger pointed at the heart of social security and medicare and veterans' benefits. now, we are told that the only way we can get our budget into balance is by this amendment. well, the fact is that's not

true. the reason we have the problem we have now is because of years of reckless republican presidents. and administrations. when president clinton took office, we had a huge budget deficit, $00 billion a year. the -- $300 billion a year. the forecast was $00 billion and $500 billion by the mid nights. congress made decisions to turn that around followed by the president's recommendations. in 1993 and smaller one in 1997. that one the republicans helped with with speaker gingrich. as a result of those decisions, by the time president clinton left office and president bush assumed office, we had a huge surplus. the question was what are we going to do when we pay off the entire national debt by 2012? that's what was going to happen. what changed that? two huge tax cuts for rich people. pushed through by the republicans' president bush. we said at the time that would generate tremendous deficits. in fact, the reason they were set to expire in 2010 was because the c.b.o. said that

after 2010 they would generate tremendous ongoing huge deficits, which they are doing. secondly, we had two unfunded wars. the first time in american his trey we didn't raise taxes to pay for wars. thirdly, we doubled the pentagon budget, not including the wars. and fourth, we had a recession starting in 2008 during the end of the bush administration. some people say it's the obama administration. the unfettered spending of the obama administration. nonsense. the amount of money being spent on nondefense discretionary spending, that is all spending other than defense, veterans benefits, medicare, social security, and interest on the debt is the same today, the same, not a penny more, adjusted for inflation and population growth, than it was in 2001. in 2001 we had a huge surplus. where did the surplus change to a deficit? wars and tax cuts. and increased pentagon spending. now, what can we do about this? so the problem is not spending

alone. the problem is that we are not taxing the rich and the corporations enough. in 1970, in 1970 corporations paid 30% of all federal income tax receipts from corporate income taxes. today it's 8%. we have let the corporations get away with murder, the big businesses with exxon paying no taxes on profits of $6 billion. general electric paying no taxes, getting a refund. that's our problem. but we don't want to deal with that. we want to pass a constitutional amendment. now, if we pass this constitutional amendment, it would mean any time you went into a recession it would drive it into a recession. it would mean we have to make huge spending cuts now. it would mean we have to decimate social security, medicare, veterans benefits. it makes no sense at all. if this were in effect now, we would have to -- we were told by the macroeconomic analysts that if this amendment went into effect for next year, next year,

it would reduce -- increase unemployment by 15 million people. so i urge that we not pass this amendment. instead we do the hard work of increasing taxes on corporations and rich people, of getting discipline into our expenditures, but the first thing to do is jobs. if we got unemployment down to 5% where it was in 2007, that by itself would reduce unemployment by 40%. in a recession, first you take care of the jobs. when you are back into better times then you can start thinking about balancing your budget. that's when you ought to do it. not force cuts in expenditures or increase in taxes during a recession which just makes the recession much worse and unemployment much worse which is what this amendment would do. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. paulson, a member of the general services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes.

mr. paulsen: i rise in support of the balanced budget amendment. since our country was first founded the issue of debt and government spending has been at the forefront of the minds of our political leaders, national security advisors, our business owners, and citizens alike. it's obvious that our $15 trillion national debt, it's not a republican problem, it's not a democratic problem, it's an american problem. mr. speaker, our economy has stumbled. families are making tough decisions and cutting spending and living within their means. however, one thing that hasn't changed is that the -- the way government spends the people's money. we must work together now to resolve our spending driven debt crisis because the simple truth is that washington must stop spending money it does not have. our debt crisis is a legitimate threat to our nation's security and our future. our nation does not control its debt, it does not control its destiny. to give our children and grandchildren that secure future and economic stability, we need a balanced budget, we need this balanced budget amendment

because it is a fundamental reform that will absolutely produce results. it's time to pass a balanced budget amendment to give government spending -- get gft spending -- government spending under control. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i reserve for the moment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. buchanan, who is also a member of the ways and means committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. buchanan: thank you, mr. speaker. this is a historic opportunity for the first time in 16 years the house will vote on a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. just this week our national debt surpassed $15 trillion. for too long republicans and democrats have turned a blind eye to our government's financial mess. washington needs to make the tough choices necessary to

balance the budget for the sake of our children and grandchildren. the federal government has balanced its budget only five times in the last 50 years. this is unacceptable. the first bill i introduced in congress was a constitutional balanced budget amendment in 2007. it simply requires the federal government to live within its means. 49 out of 508 states including my home state of florida have to balance their budget. florida, the last four, five years has had tough revenue years like everybody else. but they have balanced their budget. in fact, when we got downgraded by the s&p, that same week florida got upgraded by their credit rating. admiral mike mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs, put it the best when he said the biggest threat we have to our national security is our debt. anders kin bowles, co-chair of the president's -- and erskine

bowles, co-chair of the president's commission, said it's a cancer, it's going to destroy the country from within. the time is right to ratify a balanced budget amendment and send it to the states. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. i would simply point out when s&p downgraded our debt, they were so well respected that the interest rates went down and the price of our bonds went up. so much for s&p. i now yield the gentleman from wisconsin, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for two minutes. mr. nadler: does the majority side have an extra minute they can spare? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas controls his time. mr. smith: i yield the gentleman an extra minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. kind: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the balanced budget amendment. mr. speaker, i do believe that this congress needs rules. it needs rules in budgeting. but i can't help believe today

that the easier and more practical response to the huge budget deficits that we face is going back to what tried and true method called pay as you go budgeting. you got revenue reductions, spending increase, you got to find an offoffset. it was a rule in place in the 1990's that led to four years of budget surpluses. we are actually paying down the national debt rather than adding to it. unfortunately when president bush took office along with the republican majority in congress, they supported two wars that went unpaid for. they had two tax cuts that went unpaid for. that primarily bep fitted the most wealthy in this country. you may recall that the main justification for those tax cuts was their fear that we were going to pay down the national debt too fast. it was laughable then and it's laughable today. then they supported the largest increase in entitlement spending since medicare was created in 1965 with a new prescription drug bill that was not paid for.

and these are ongoing obligations right now adding to the fiscal woes that we are trying to climb out of as a nation. i know that the majority today does not embrace pay-as-you-go budgeting even though it worked in the 1990's. even though it helped create 27 million private sector jobs during that period. and left an era of budget surpluses. so the next best thing we have to instill some fiscal discipline in this place is through a balanced budget amendment. going through that laborious process of trying to find 2/3 in the house and senate and 3/4 of the states to embrace it. if that's what it takes to get our fiscal house in order, to check against unbridled tax cuts that aren't paid for or new increase in spending that goes unpaid for, it's a risk worth taking because we are jeopardizing the future of our nation, our children's future with these ongoing budget deficits, and steps need to be taken right now. there is a legitimate concern that members on my side of the

aisle have been expressing. the 3/5 increase of vote in order to increase the debt ceiling. we saw how perilously close we came to defaulting on our nation's obligations over the summer. and i fear that through this amendment that a minority in this body could literally hold the rest of our nation hostage or paralyze the functioning of our government or lead to the default of our obligation. i still think that's a legitimate concern that's not addressed through this amendment. in fact, it makes that probability more likely and it's something that we are going to have to address as we move forward. but today i think given the lack of options that we face and the dire situation that we have, with the budget deficits, and the lack of progress, unfortunately, with the supercommittee, as we have seen over the last couple of months, that the balanced budget amendment seems like the most practical approach given the political realities. i encourage my colleagues to support it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield 1 1/2 minutes

to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. froig, who is a member of the -- frelinghuysen, who is a member of the appropriations committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, i rise in strong support of the bipartisan balanced budget act of 2011 and urge its adoption. my colleagues, government at all levels is mired in debt. mismanagement and overspending have left our nation on the brink of bankruptcy. why? the math is simple. the federal government takes in approximately $2.2 trillion every year, but spends over $3.5 trillion. to sustain the operations of government, we borrow 42 cents of every federal dollar we spend. the impli cases are obvious -- implications are obvious. we are hurtling down a path towards a predictable financial disaster in the history of our planet. enough is enough. the american people want us to begin to live within our means. they need a permanent fiscal

solution. spendling cuts are important but what congress passes today, another congress and even the same congress, can undo tomorrow. the only effective way to control spending is through an amendment to the u.s. constitution. balancing budgets is not an untested idea. over had the states currently abide by some sort of balanced budget amendment. let's pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution today. let's get the job done. thank you. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. doggett: mr. speaker, while this house does sometimes act in ways that near insane, this basically imposes the tyranny of the minority, we can block

action. we have seen how well that works across the capitol at the united states senate where 3/5 already applies and they have been unresponsive to public demand for action on key national issues, unable to overcome the threat of a republican filibuster. today's proposal would broaden that impotence to both sides of the capitol on a critical budget question if we take a vote in this house and 260 people vote in the majority and 275 vote in the minority, the minority rules. democracy loses. there is an exception to this proposed new rule and it's an exception that may eat the entire rule. so long as a majority of the house determines probably through the fine print of some huge, voluminous piece of

legislation, that the country faces a serious threat to their national security, well, in this case, this purported constitution is nullified. why would a majority of this congress had been unwilling to make such a finding and render the proposal meaningless? a constitutional amendment is not a path to a balanced budget. it is only an excuse for members of this body failing to cast votes to achieve one. can you give me another wynn minute? mr. nadler: the gentleman is granted one minute. mr. doggett: i voted for a balanced budget. i voted for a balanced budget when i voted against launching an unnecessary war on borrowed money. i voted for a balanced budget when the question is taxes, less always means more. it's political alchemy. it's like turning hay into

gold. the more the tax cut theology is proven wrong over and over again the more the republican faithful demands another tax cut to drive us deeper into debt. this is the kind of extremism that causes a stage full of republican presidential hopefuls to declare they would reject any budget agreement that cuts spending by $10 if it raised taxes by even $1. a few months ago such irresponsibility took us to the brink of default and jeopardized our economic recovery. they just could not overcome their ideological restraints. don't jeopardize our economic future. don't play games with veterans and retirement security and law enforcement just because republicans can't accept the economic reality as they often cannot accept basic science. reget this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. benham, who is

a member of the energy and commerce committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. denham: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the balanced budget amendment. just this week the national debt exceeded $15 trillion. that's the bottom line. $15 trillion, and a balanced budget amendment would hold government accountable. now, some say that that accountability will tie the hands of congress. some say this is going to create a greater debate between revenues and spending cuts. well, i'd agree on both. the same way every american family has to balance their budget. every week, every month, every year. the same way that i as a small business owner have to pay my bills every week, every month, every year. we owe this country the opportunity to not only see a balanced budget but a bipartisan effort here in congress.

if you want more job creation, we have to have certainty. before a company is going to go out there and hire new employees, they need certainty not only to see that our country is on the right path, not only to see we are going to reduce our debt, but also taking a look at our credit rating to make sure we are credit worthy and have a long-term plan. that type of certainty will create jobs in this country. that type of certainty is what is needed with a balanced budget amendment. mr. chairman, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd point out that families are able to borrow to pay for the car and to pay for the mortgage . under this amendment the federal government would never be able to borrow. it's quite different. mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from iowa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for two minutes. mr. boswell: i rise in support of h.j.res. 2.

a great respect and i hear mr. conyers and mr. nadler, i understand their strong feelings. i'd like to thank the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, for bringing this bipartisan resolution to the floor. i also want to thank him for resisting the efforts by some in his party to enshrine the fiscal policies of the tea party into our constitution. my colleagues, our budget is broken. after years of special interest handouts on both the revenue and spending ledgers we now have a system that requires us to bore -- borrow over $1 trillion. why do we borrow? it seems because there is not the political will in this body to make the difficult decisions that we need to do. we're elected leaders. we are elect to lead, but when it comes to the long-term fiscal imbalance our nation faces, many in this body seems to be more interested in

securing the next election than securing the safety and soundness of our fiscal future. and no one party is at fault. both parties are responsible of the financial mess we are facing. our national debt did not reach this current level overnight, although we seem to have amnesia in september of 2008 when secretary paulson came to talk to us that the sky has been falling. this is decades in the making. these are serious times and serious times call for serious people to make serious decisions and we know what these decisions must be. we cannot cut our way out of this mess and we cannot and should not tax our way out of this mess. we need quite simply a balanced approach that gets us to a balanced budget. the fact -- i tell you a situation in my home state. when i was appropriations chair we were faced with a budget that was -- can i have another? mr. nadler: the gentleman is yielded another 30 seconds.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. boswell: we took it on. and we worked with downtown. we worked with everybody across the state and we came up with a solution. and it's working. we have -- there's money in the bank in iowa, the unemployment rate is around 6% and that's something we need to be striving to achieve here. we need to go through the steps. how do we include the revenue side of it? it's working and it will work here. we can do this. let's work together. i urge an aye vote and yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. costa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. costa: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the bipartisan balanced budget amendment, and i want to thank my colleagues, congressman goodlatte and others who have worked on this effort and really urge my colleagues that

this is the time that we need to come together to act on behalf of the better interest of our nation. clearly a majority of the citizens i represent in the san joaquin valley agree that washington needs to get its fiscal house in order. we all want a balanced budget. too few are willing to make an agreement that will move us toward that goal. that's why the passage of the constitutional amendment requiring the federal government to live within its means is an important step. but it is only a step. to balance our budget members of both parties still have to come together to set priorities and, yes, make compromises and shared sacrifices to produce fair balanced budget each year and never has the need ever been so clear. our national debt recently surpassed the g.d.p. for the first time since world war ii. each american's share of the debt is now greater than their average salary. congress could have acted sooner, but we haven't and we can no longer afford to wait. the bipartisan passage of this

balanced budget amendment is an important and necessary step toward a sound fiscal future, and as a co-sponsor, we should pass this measure. but we should also reach a larger agreement with the supercommittee that's fair and balanced on entitlement reform and revenues. if we do so we will begin to restore the confidence by the american public that we can work together to get our economy back on track and create the jobs that all americans want. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, it's now my privilege to yield to a member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from massachusetts, four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for four minutes. >> earlier this week mr. bartlett recently testified before the ways and means committee commented about the republicans' balanced budget amendment. he stated, quote, the proposal that republican leaders plan to bring up is frankly nuts. the truth is that americans don't care about actually

balancing the budget. they prefer to delude voters with a pie in the sky -- that this will solve our budget problems. mr. neal: mr. speaker, the mystical date here is january 19, 2001. bill clinton says goodbye and leaves a surplus not subject, by the way, to opinion today but subject by fact, of $7.5 trillion. $5.7 trillion. so the decision is made to cut faxes in 2001 by $1 trillion. the decision is made in 2003 to cut taxes by $1,300,000,000,000. and then subsequently to engage a war in iraq based upon the faulty premise of weapons of mass destruction. now, our republican friends often come to the microphone and say things like, well, we all spent too much money.

no, i didn't spend too much money. i voted against the war in iraq. i voted against the bush tax cuts. i voted against the prescription benefit proposal. our friend from new jersey a moment ago said the math is clear. but for republicans, why is the math only clear when bill clinton's president and barack obama is president? they ran these deficits through the roof. there is no escaping that conclusion. the budget has been balanced five times since the end of world war ii. four of those times during the clinton presidency. 22 million jobs were created during those years. this is the equivalent of using a lugar to clean the wax out of your ears. this proposal is beyond the pail. they ran across the country with the tea party types saying, have you read the bill? yes, we've read the bill and

we've come to the conclusion this is a reckless pursuit of defying our constitutional responsibility when we've already demonstrated we can accomplish these ends without disturbing the constitution that they attempted during the campaign cycle to marry. let's honor the constitution, the tea party says. and today what do they propose, disturbing the constitution after their financial malfeasance for eight years. this argument they bring to the floor today is a political gimmick. george bush sr. lobbied me on the amendment many years ago when it failed. and respectfully i pointed out to him that it was nothing more than political theater. when president bush jr. invited me to the white house to discuss his tax cut proposal in 2001, a matter of days after his assumption of the presidency. he said, this is the people's money and he's right.

guess what, it's the people's responsibility to honor those veterans' hospitals after 35,000 men and women who have served us honorably in iraq and afghanistan who are going to need our care for decades to come. it's the people's responsibility on social security, the greatest anti-poverty program in history. it's the people's responsibility on medicare, which has added years to life and life to years. this proposal today overdoes it. there are enough men and women of good will in this institution to assemble for the purpose of getting on to a balanced budget without taking this pursuit of dishonoring our constitution when we should be doing this on our own right now as the law is prescribed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i'll yield four minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, who is a member of the transportation committee.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for four minutes. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman, and i particularly want to thank mr. goodlatte for his extraordinary leadership on this issue. we both supported virtually identical amendment in 1995. now, when i first came to congress i did not support a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. i said things similar to my good friend and colleague, mr. neal from massachusetts. it's a gimmick, we don't need it, people can come together, we can make these decisions. it didn't take me long in observing the congress to realize that there's an infinity capacity in this -- infinite capacity in this congress to kick the can down the road. the can is getting pretty darn heavy to kick down the road and it's going to land on the next generation with full force. $15 trillion of debt. for the first time since world war ii our, you know, our debt

-- this year our deficit exceeds the gross domestic product. . we are going to have to force people to make tough decisions. that the conclusion i came to when i supported the amendment back in the mid 1990's. think about it. passed the house. failed by one vote in the senate. and had that become the law of the land, today we'd be paying down the last of the debt. might still be in this hole economically that we are in. but we would actually then perhaps have the capacity and will to go out and borrow a couple hundred billion dollars to rebuild the nation's crumbling infrastructure. we can afford it. but in this environment with this amendment of debt that's a very tough sell around here. this is an honest balanced budget amendment. it does not prejudice the debate between taxes, and there are many on that side who object to any new taxes or revenue, and spending cuts. there are many of my side who

object to many spending cuts. it does not discriminate. it's fair. it's evenhanded. there were many on the republican side that would have tied the hands of congress. you need a 66% of vote. you have to be limited to 18% of g.d.p. they brought forward something that is fair and it would be something that would force members of congress and future members of congress to make the tough decisions that we have to make. a lot of talk about social security. i'm an expert on social security. social security is the largest creditor of the united states of america. $2.66 trillion. we have to have the capability to redeem that debt to pay future social security benefits in the not distant future when we have to draw on what's called a trust fund. it's not a trust fund. it's government bonds. it's debt f we keep adding to the pile of debt, will we have the capability to repay those

social security bonds? there's a long-term problem with social security. i have a bill to fix that. lifts the caps on wages. i didn't notice that many on my side have been down here carrying on about the attack on social security in this bill. they are not on my bill because that's a tough thing to say. we are going to make people over 250 pay the same amount. that's the solution long-term. short term we have to worry about being able to redeem those bonds and pay those promised benefits. and a lot of talk about the debt limit. when we are in balance you are going to have to have a 60% vote to deficit spend and you would need a 60% vote for an increase in the debt limit. i would say that they could be done at exactly the same time. it requires the same number -- someone going to vote today to -- say we are in balance to vote in deficit to deal with the economic situation today? perhaps to fund infrastructure investment, and then vote later on today against raising the debt limit by the same amount? that would vitiate their earlier

vote. i don't think that that's a real threat. if you vote no, you are assuming that we have an infinite capacity, infinite, to borrow money, to pass on to future generations. and still meet our obligations to the american people. i don't believe that. we need limits. we need to be forced to make tough decisions and this would force future congresses to make those tough decisions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i point out if this amendment passed we would never be able to borrow money to do the infrastructure we need. i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. >> i thank you, mr. speaker, i suspect we are about to internear a west coast debate here. mr. garamendi: my good friend from organizeon brings a perspective a little north of california and i would like to bring to this discussion a perspective of california. for more than 30 years

california has lived under a constitutional amendment much like this constitutional amendment. constitutional amendment that in the state of california requires a supermajority vote for raising taxes and for the budget itself. very similar to what is required here. the only difference is in california it was 2/3, here it's 60%. one only need look at the extraordinary dysfunction that california has endured in the intervening 30 years since that constitutional amendment went into effect. it has become a situation in california where we went from the very best, the very, very best education system in this nation, both k through 12 and higher education, the best infrastructure in this nation, and the most robust economy in

the nation. to one in which we have had perpetual political gridlock. because of the supermajority requirement. so i bring to this house my own 35 years of experience with a constitution that would -- that does impose a supermajority. it simmably has not worked to the ben -- it simply has not worked to the benefit of the state of california. to visit such a thing upon the united states in my view, in my experience of 35 years in public life in california, would be a great disaster for the united states. one in which we would have perpetual gridlock. already in this house this year my republican colleagues are very upset about the united states senate not being able to do anything because of the 60

vote requirement. you keep talking about the 19 job bills that are over there that are tied up. it's the 60 vote requirement that has tied them up in the senate. last year it was the democrats that were complaining about the senate not being able to move because of the 60 vote requirement in the senate. do we want that also here in the house? i would hope not. i would ask us to back away from what is politically expedient. and the political expediency, we all understand this. we have all been in this a long time. we understand the political expedience about the sound bite, about the way in which it appears. we are taking action to solve the deficit. please look at california. look at what's happened in california over the last 35 years. as a supermajority vote has

created gridlock. and by the way -- i ask for another 30 seconds. mr. nadler: yielded another 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. speaker. i would also ask you to take a look at the fact that even with that supermajority vote, california has perpetually run a deficit. because it could not bring into balance the revenues and the outlays, because the outlays were required but the reality of the economy, by the reality of the people. this is a very, very important vote. and i bring to this house my experience of what a supermajority vote has meant to the state of california. mr. speaker, thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, dr. fleming, a member of the armed services committee.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. fleming: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i have listened carefully to the debate today and listening to the other side. mr. speaker, this body is hopelessly addicted to excessive spending and budget deficits. hopelessly. and the other side those who argue that we should not have a balanced budget amendment are hopelessly in denial, just like a drug addict is in denial about their addiction. we have 535 members. if you include the senate, that compete with one another to see how much money we can spend. we have an executive branch that does the same. republican or democrat, doesn't matter. we all do the same thing. there's absolutely no control or governor, if you will, on our excessive spending. and let's put this in perspective. in the 235 years since the founding of this great country,

we have added $10.6 trillion to the national debt. in 2 1/2 years of this presidency, we have increased that by 50%. an addition of $5 trillion. we just passed the $15 trillion debt level. mr. speaker, at the current rate, this is not just a projection, this is set in stone by the end of the first term of this president, president obama, we will have increased the national debt by 70% just in that one term, four years. mr. speaker, we cannot do this based on our willingness to balance the budget. we are incapable of doing that. we are addicted to spending. we are in denial about this. and it's time that we do something. i stand in support of h.j.res. 2, the balanced budget amendment

to the constitution of the united states. frankly i would like to see a more restrictive form. a more severe form that controlled the possibility of added taxes. i will vote for this and just in closing i would like to say that it does some wonderful things. it prohibits a debt increase with a 3/4 vote. it requires the president to submit a balanced budget each year. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. fleming: it again it requires the president submit a balanced budget. our senate over there has yet to pass a budget resolution in three years. it provides for a waiver -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. >> i would like to know if i can be against the balanced budget amendment without being compared to being a drug addict. is that doable in this body? to maintain some comity? i believe in helping my

constituents, but my support of spending isn't tied to a drug addiction. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is not stating a point of order. mr. jackson: it's not a point of order that the gentleman has made reference to those of us who are opposed to the balanced budget amendment as having been addicted to drugs. is that a problem for the comity of this chamber, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman demanding the words be taken down? mr. jackson: i'm not prepared to go that far. mr. fleming: mr. speaker, this is ridiculous. mr. jackson: the gentleman needs to be very careful. i can have them read that back to you again. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman has simply made a comparison. does the gentleman wish that the words be taken down? mr. jackson: i withdraw my point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's point of order is withdrawn. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. phlegm being: just in

conclusion -- mr. fleming: just in conclusion, let me say this when i talk about us, or we being addicted to spending, i'm talking about everyone in congress and the executive branch. i'm not pointing fingers at any one group of people. but i will say those who are unwilling to do something about it by supporting a balanced budget amendment are in a clear state of denial. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i yield myself 90 seconds. it is not true as we have heard on this floor repeatedly today that both parties are addicted to spending and that the deficit is equally the fault of both parties. it is the fault of george bush, the fault of the republican congress, under president clinton, a democratic congress voted for tax increases and for spending cuts and produced balanced budgets four years in a row of such significance that we were going to eliminate the entire national debt by 2012.

the republicans came in and voted without democratic support and voted for huge tax cuts for two unfunded wars, and to double the pentagon budget without increasing taxes to pay for it. and that generated the huge deficit we have. the deficit was also generated by the fact that we got into, because arguably republican deregulatory policies, we got into this huge depression caused by wall street. and that increased the necessity -- that increased the deficit. the c.b.o. in january of 2009 before president obama took office, one month before, said the next year's deficit would be $1.2 trillion. without the president, this president having done a thing. and the point is, spending, as i said before, spending on nondefense discretionary spending, everything other than medicare, medicaid, social security, and veterans benefits, and interest on the debt has not increased, not increased since 2001 when adjusted for inflation

and population growth. so that is not the source of our budget deficit. the source of our budget deficit is we cut the taxes on rich and corporations and spent money on wars we didn't pay for. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. goodlatte: thank you. in response to the gentleman from new york, i just want to point out a few facts. in the last 50 years the budget has been balanced six times. democrats have controlled the house of representatives 37 of those years, and only two of those years, only two of those years did they balance the budget. four times when republicans were in the majority the budget was balanced, 1999 -- 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001. . when those budgets were offered in this house, many democrats voted in a bipartisan fashion for at least one of those budgets. the gentleman from new york voted against all four balanced budgets that occurred in the last time that he has been in the congress.

and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, on that i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, sending the training that my mother gave me, i will again say that i stand here unaddicted and recognize that there are those who are addicted to throwing the vulnerable on the trash heap of life. time and time again in those budgets that assume my good friend, mr. nadler, voted against, that he refused to throw the vulnerable on the trash heap of life. we come again to a time when we want to abdicate our

responsibility under the constitution, but my friends, i want to remind that you time and time again the republicans came back to that tired, old formula, balanced budget amendment, and time and time again they were rejected. this constitution is sacred, it has nothing in it about the balanced budget, 26 amendments and they have been rejected. why? because they don't want to do the job that the people of the united states have sent us to do. the job that says, give and take on how we fund this government. someone wants to talk about state governments, yes, 49 states have a balanced budget amendment. but it is on the operation budget not on the capital budget. the united states of america is responsible for disasters when they attacked new york and missouri and texas. united states is responsible for lifting a military and providing for our sons and daughters on the frontlines of iraq and

afghanistan, world war i and ii, korea and of course vietnam, the persian gulf and many other places. our states are not responsible for that. balanced budget amendment, maybe we want to be able to follow the good works of our dear friends on the supercommittee. i have great respect for them. the headline says, supercommittee well short of a deal. because this is not the way we run a country. and i refuse to be called addicted without the explanation that my mother would want in mo -- want me to give. i'm addicted to saving lives. i'm addicted to making sure that social security is not violently cut by the balanced budget amendment. medicare being cut by nearly $750 billion if this resolution was to pass. social security almost $1.2 trillion. veterans benefits, $85 billion through 2021. and so my argument is to be able to analyze what we're doing

here, my friends. the constitution gives this house the power of the purse strings but yet it will take 2/3 of vote in the middle of a crisis, a war, a disaster, the need to invest in our young people, numbers that dr. jeffrey sax said that we need a legitimate apprentice program that leads young people from college or training into a job. having jobs invest into america. would you understand that we have the lowest number of white males going to college? the lowest number of african-americans going to college, the lowest number of latinos. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: can i get 30 seconds? i thank the distinguished gentleman. we need investment in human resources and all we're doing today is denouncing and ridding ourselves of the object littletory responsibility that we have -- obligatory responsibility that we have when we take an oath to this constitution every two years.

so i don't want to be a spoil today. i believe we should tighten our belts. there are many ways of doing so. looking at the financial transactions on wall street or the chicago commotity -- commodities. many ways to do it. but this is a strangle hold on our neck, i refuse to cut seniors, children, social security -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. hurt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hurt: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution offered by my friend from virginia, mr. goodlatte. i'd like to thank mr. goodlatte for his leadership on this important legislation and as a co-sponsor of this measure i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this balanced budget amendment. our nation's staggering debt and reckless borrowing illustrate the urgent need to implement real constitution zsh institutional change in washington -- institutional

change in washington. members of both parties have chosen the political expedient course over what is in the best interest of our nation, casting aside any spending pledges or any statutory caps and pushing our nation further along on a careless spending binge with devastating consequences for the people of virginia's fifth district and all across our country. we as a nation now face a $15 trillion debt that nearly equals the size of our entire united states economy. we're running a $1.3 trillion deficit and we are borrowing over $4 -- 40 cents on every dollar we spend. this dire debt crisis not only threatens our economic recovery by stifling job creation, but it also threatens the very future of our country. given the seriousness of our current fiscal situation and congress' abysmal record of fiscal management, it is critical that we put institutional spending reforms in place that will force the government to live within its means just as families, businesses and state governments do in virginia and across the country. by passing a balanced budget

amendment, congress will be required to spend no more than it takes in, reining in out-of-control spending once and for all. as i travel across virginia's fifth district, i continually hear from my constituents, republicans, democrats and independents, who say that if we are serious about turning our economy around and if we are serious about preserving this country for our children and grandchildren, we must put an immediate end to washington's out-of-control spending. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bipartisan measure so we may implement the structural framework necessary to put our nation back on a path to fiscal sustainability for the sake of future americans. i thank the gentleman and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i'm proud to yield four minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for four minutes. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, we've heard a lot about the members on the other side of the aisle trying to take credit for the fiscal

responsibility in the 1990's. i think we need to review what actually happened during those years. i came into congress in 1993 and the first tough votes we had to cast were on the budget. and we passed a tough budget and it passed by one vote in the house and a tie-breaking vote by the vice president in the senate, not a single republican voted for that tough budget. in fact, it's that budget that we're talking about that laid the groundwork for the fiscal responsibility from the 1990's. and on that vote, when the last vote was cast by the gentleman from pennsylvania, the members on the other side of the aisle did not congratulate her for casting the tie-breaking vote to pass the bill, they started chanting, bye-bye marjory and she was defeated with that vote in her next election. in fact, she was defeated along with almost 50 members of the democratic party who voted for that budget. in 1995 when the republicans

came in with a majority they tried to dismantle the budget. and in fact president clinton vetoed all of those budgets that they had offered and we shut down the government rather than to dismantle that plan. finally when the deficit has gone from $290 billion down to less than $25 billion, then the members of the other side of the aisle join on as we cross the finish line. well, that's about like showing up at the ribbon cutting after you have voted against the stimulus bill. all of the tough votes had been cast. all of the hard work, all of the political damage had been suffered and now all of a sudden they want to come in and take credit. what they can take credit for is president clinton vetoing their bills. if you want to know what would happened if they had been signed, we found out in 2001. because as chairman greenspan had to answer questions of what's going to happen if we pass the national debt too quickly, we're in charge of

paying off the national debt, after the first tax cut, the last time you heard anybody talking about paying off the national debt. two tax cuts not paid for, two wars not paid for, prescription drugs not paid for and now we find ourselves in the ditch. balancing the budget is arithmetic. you have to pass some unpopular votes, you have to raise taxes and/or cut spending and you're going to make some political enemies doing either one. this legislation doesn't help us make those tough choices. in fact, it makes it even more difficult. people say, well, we need a constitutional amendment to force us to balance the budget. this legislation doesn't force us to do anything. it makes it more difficult. read the bill. if we want to pass something, we had a hearing on it a couple of days ago, when the former governor of pennsylvania said that balanced budget provision in the pennsylvania state constitution was a good idea. i asked him, what provision in this legislation can be found in the pennsylvania constitution?

none of them. none of the provisions of h.j.res. 2 can be found in any state constitution other than the title. and so here we are talking about the title but not the provisions of the bill. the major provision in this bill is a 3/5 requirement to pass a budget that's not in balance which incidentally would cover every budget that we considered this year. now, i think it's fair to say that the most fiscally conservative budget on the table was a republican study group that got a few votes, not anywhere close to a majority. if that's your goal, why would raising the threshold from a simple majority that you couldn't even get up to 3/5 would make it more likely that could you pass that tough kind of budget. in fact, once you decide that you need 3/5, which we would have to pass any budget we considered this year would be 3/5 -- can i have an additional two minutes? mr. nadler: the gentleman is

yielded an additional minute. mr. scott: once you have ascertained that even the republican study group budget would require 3/5, any budget responsible or irresponsible could pass with the same 3/5. in fact, could you cut taxes with 3/5. you could raise spending, you could have a totally irresponsible budget with 3/5. so why is it more likely that you're going to be fiscally responsible with 3/5 when you haven't even been able to get a simple majority, when 3/5 -- last december we passed a tax cut, putting us $800 billion further in the ditch. we had 3/5 for that. but try to get 3/5 for a meaningful deficit reduction plan. this legislation will make it more difficult to balance the budget. thaffle debate has been about the title, how nice it would be to balance the budget. but we ought to read the bill and point out that the provisions of this bill will actually make it more difficult,

probably impossible, to ever balance the budget and we will end up trying to get 3/5 vote, ending up with worse budgets than we would have under the present system. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. nadler: i -- mr. smith: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: i need to comment on the revisionist history that we're hearing. mr. speaker, the fact of the matter is that tough votes are made when congresses make the decision to balance the budget. that decision wasn't made in 1993 when democrats voted to raise taxes. it was made when we sent a budget to the president that he vetoed, the government shut down and after that shutdown, then and only then did president clinton get in favor of welfare reform and other things that led to a slowing of the rate of growth both in government spending and he calls it a ribbon cutting to vote for a balanced -- i ask for an additional 30 seconds. a ribbon cutting to show up and vote for budgets that have actually balanced. the gentleman from virginia, my good friend, voted against all

four, all four of the budgets that were balanced in the 1990's and leading up to 2001. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i'll yield two minutes to my friend and colleague from texas, mr. canseco, a member of the financial services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. canseco: thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, mr. speaker. today we are talking -- taking an important step towards changing the way washington does business. and it couldn't come at a more opportune time as our national debt crossed the $15 trillion threshold this week which means that now on average every american household's share of the national debt is $127,899. our nation is in the midst of a spending-driven debt crisis. we've run three successive $1 trillion-plus deficits, we are borrowing approximately 40 cents out of every dollar the federal

government spends and the c.b.o. estimates that by the end of the decade we'll be spending almost $1 trillion just to pay the interest on our debt. if we do nothing, the problem will get worse. we'll continue spending, borrowing and accumulating more debt until one day our children and grandchildren and their futuretures are drowned in a see -- futures are drowned in a sea of red ink. our inability to get our fiscal house in order will leave them with a downsized american dream. as a father of three children, this is something i refuse to do. i'm the son of mexican immigrants who came to this nation to provide their children with a better life and to live in a land where my opportunity would be limited only by how hard i worked and how big i could dream. . i want to ensure that america remains a land of limited opportunity for our children and our grandchildren. i don't want the legacy of this generation of americans to be that we are the first

generations to pass on a smaller american dream to our future generations. for too long our nation has spent far beyond its means. we have run up a national credit card, borrowing from our children and grandchildren's future, to pay for spending today. we need to cut up the national credit card and make sure the dire situation we have gotten ourselves into never happens again. and a balanced budget amendment will do just that. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: how much time does each side have, please? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york has 36 3/4. the gentleman from texas has 1 hour and 4 1/2 minutes. mr. nadler: we'll reserve at the moment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, control the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise, a member of the energy and commerce committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman from virginia for yielding time to me to speak about this important issue. really want to thank him for bringing this to the floor. because this is one of those rare bipartisan pieces of legislation that congress brings forward that is so critical to the future of our country. a balanced budget amendment is an idea that is long overdue. if you look where we are right now, some of the biggest challenges facing our country, come from the fact that washington continues to spend money it doesn't have. this nation just passed the $15 trillion threshold in debt. just in the last 2 1/2 years since president obama's been in office, another $5 trillion,

mountains of debt, that have been added to the backs of our children and grandchildren. it's irresponsible to keep dumping this debt on to future generations. it hurts america's ability to grow. it holds america's promise back. and it's got to stop. if you look at what is important about this debate, a balanced budget amendment will finally bring permanent accountability in place to force washington to start living within its means. to tell washington you can't keep spending money you don't have. yet you listen to this debate, there are republicans and democrats supporting this concept that long overdue to require a balanced federal budget, but of course there are opponents as well. if you listen to what some of the opponents have been saying, they called it reckless. 49 states do this. families all across the country balance their budget. and they call it reckless to live within our means. what i would finally say in conclusion is that we have got to put these reins on washington

spending. we've got to give this promise to the next generation. stop playing politics. let's pass this amendment. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: i point out that 49 states borrow for capital budgets, they have a balanced budget amendment for operating budgets. this makes no distinction. it will not let us borrow ever. i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i yield myself 15 seconds to point out that this does allow you to borrow, you have to have a supermajority and special reason to do so. i point out the states had anything like the proportionate debt that's constituted by this government today of $15 trillion, they wouldn't be borrowing much money either. at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy, a member of the financial services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for two minutes. mr. duffy: thank you. this is not the version that i

supported. i wanted a version that had spending caps linked to g.d.p. but as this week we passed the $15 trillion debt mark, i thought it was important that this house come together and figure out a way to control its spending. but to look at recent history, this house conference on the g.o.p. side passed a budget this year that brought our country to balance. and all the democrats across the aisle -- most of them voted no. they were offered a counterproposal that could bring our budget to balance. the democrats in the senate haven't proposed a budget in 900 days. we need to be serious about this debt. and today as we have $15 trillion in debt, and we have historic interest rate lows, let's look out 10 years when the debt is $25 trillion and we go from historic low interest rates to historic new orleans.

-- norms. if we can't balance the budget today, is it going to be easier? when $25 trillion and we have more people on social security and medicare? my friends across the aisle like to pull out social security, medicare, and the needy. you know what? i care about those constituents in my district as well. but we have to be honest about what we are doing. we are borrowing this money from china. we have given them an economic nuclear bomb. we are bankrupting this country. jeopardizing the freedom of our next generation. let's make sure we pass this balanced budget amendment and let's rely on the american people to fund the obligations that this house makes. with that i encourage all of my colleagues to support the amendment and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, it's

now my honor to yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. plats -- platts, who is chairman of the government organization subcommittee of the oversight and reform committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. platts: i thank the chairman for yielding. and especially thank him for his great leadership on this very important issue. i rise in favor of this legislation. the federal government is currently borrowing close to 40 cents of every dollar that it spends. our $15 trillion national debt has grown to be as large as our entire economy. one of the most important actions that congress can take to restore fiscal sanity to washington for generations to come is to adopt a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution. i have co-sponsored a version of the balanced budget amendment every session since first being elected to congress including this one. this proposal would um pose a similar requirement for annually adopting a balanced budget as currently exists in 49 states,

recognizing a commonsense exception for defense under limited circumstances. the idea of a balanced budget amendment is not new. one of our founding fathers, thomas jefferson, was a strong proponent of this idea. more recently in 1995 as has been discussed, following passage by the house of representatives, the united states senate came within one vote of accepteding this version of the balanced budget amendment to the states for ratification. since then our total national debt has nearly tripled. a balanced budget amendment to the constitution will help to restore fiscal integrity in washington, boost confidence in the american economy, and stop washington's practice of saddling future generations with an insurmountable level of debt. the adoption of a balanced budget amendment has the strong support of the overwhelming majority of americans. our constituents get it. we can't continue to spend money that we don't have. it is time for washington to get it and to heed the will of the american people. we should pass this legislation

and thereby allow our state legislatures the opportunity to ratify this commonsense addition to the united states constitution. with that i yield back and thank the gentleman for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i yield four minutes to the gentleman from north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for fow minutes. -- for four minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding time. mr. watt: i haven't heard this said since i have been sitting on the floor listening to the debate, but if anybody has said it i want to express my agreement with them. we cannot continue to spend more year after year after year than we receive. that is unsustainable. and with that i cannot argue. however i disagree that we need a balanced budget amendment to

make that point. i have no balanced budget amendment to operate my household. some years i have borrowed money and gone in debt. and some years i have accumulated a surplus and paid down that debt. i'm sure that's the way every american citizen operates their life trying to make responsible decisions not hiding behind some subterfuge like a balanced budget amendment. being responsible. i went into debt to go to college. it was a wonderful investment because i wouldn't be here today if i had not done that. and i paid that debt back in some years where i generated

surpluses in my household to be able to, as a result of going to college. i went into debt to buy a house. it's been a wonderful investment. the house has a lot more value now than what i paid for it. it is part of my assets. and one of these days i'm going to pay that debt off. but i'm still, if you count that, operating in a deficit situation. there are some years that i'm in surplus. there are some years that i'm in deficit. the one thing i do know whether i'm in deficit or surplus, i count the income and i count the

expenditures. balancing a budget is not just about how much you spend. it is also about how much you take in and the government's only source of taking in money is tax revenues. so for somebody to come in here and lecture me about a balanced budget amendment when they jumped up from discussions and said, i'm not going to talk about revenues, in an effort to balance the budget, i'm just going to have you talk about expenditures, that is unacceptable to me. let's grow up in this institution. act responsibly. make tough decisions. and we can get out of this deficit situation and we can pay off the debt. we have proved it. we proved it while i was here in

this body. we got to the point that chairman greenspan at that time was saying, hey, i'm worried that you're going to pay off the national debt too much -- too fast and it's going to be deflationary. republicans were not in control then. we didn't have a balanced budget amendment then. give me 30 seconds and i'm going to stop. mr. nadler: the gentleman yielded an additional 30 seconds. mr. watt: we didn't have a balanced budget amendment then. we acted responsibly and not with a single vote from the people who are here lecturing us today and saying they need a balanced budget to stand behind. that's like standing behind my mother's skirt. grow up. make responsible decisions.

quit going into wars that we can't afford to pay for and not paying for them. make some responsible decisions and you won't need this skirt to stand behind. we don't need this. it's irrational. the american people know it's irrational because they know that balancing the budget is a function of income and expenditures. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman. if the gentleman's complaint is that there have been decisions made during republican congresses that he doesn't agree with, that spent too much money, that didn't yield to balancing budgets, the gentleman is correct. but the gentleman negligence it -- neglects to point out there have been many, many democratic congresses, in the last 52 years, 37 which only resulted in a balanced budget. that is not a good record, either. in fact during the 1909's when

we were fortunate enough to receive four balanced budgets, those -- i yield myself an additional 30 seconds. those balanced budgets were under republican congress and a democratic president. and in point of fact it was only after there was a confrontation about the level of spending and a government shutdown that the necessary reforms were made to slow the rate of government spending so we could achieve those balanced budgets. and the gentleman from north carolina takes credit for his vote in 1993 which i did not agree with, i'm going to take credit for my four votes that were balanced budgets in 1998 through 2001, which he voted against. so we need bipartisan support for a rule in our constitution that requires that the budget be balanced every year except in times of national emergency when we should have bipartisan support to not balance. at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, chairman of the energy and commerce, oversight and

investigation subcommittee. . mr. stearns: i thank my distinguished colleague. i say to my colleagues on the democrat side, you know, we can sit here and blame bush. you can sit here on our side, we can blame president obama. and we can have this high rhetoric talking about this issue and we need to get serious. but we are in a very precarious situation. this is all different. when you look at the statistics and you say, well, look, what's going to happen in this country in 10 years? in 10 years 95% of all federal tax revenues will be consumed by payments of interest on the national debt and mandatory programs like social security. i think you would agree with that. medicare and medicaid is also there. this will leave just about 5% of our annual tax revenue available for funding national defense and other essential functions of the government. so this is an attempt here today, a very sober attempt to control budgets and do this through a balanced budget

amendment. now, you make a valid argument about the difference of these 49 states having an operational balanced budget which is, they don't have a capital outlay balanced budget. i understand that argument. but also, with this constitutional amendment, we're also projecting attempts to have a rainy day fund where we set aside money for the emergencies. so you cannot hang your whole argument on the difference between the operational budget and the capital outlay budget as a panacea for not voting for this. because we are at such dire extreme situations. talking about founding fathers, they understood the perils associated with development in fact, thomas jefferson said, quote, the principle of spending money to be paid by future generations under the name of funding is but swindling, swindling the future on a large scale. so we need to come together and understand, this is not business as usual like we voted for the constitutional amendment some 15 years ago. this is brand new. we do not think we can go

forward without controlling our spending and this is an honest attempt to do so. so i think the high rhetoric on both sides of blaming different presidents and talking about the past is gone. we're talking about the future. i urge your support of this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. either we will have the discipline to do what we have to or this amendment simply puts those decisions in the hands of a federal judge which we don't want to see, i don't think. i reserve the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. hultgren, who is a member of the agriculture committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. hultgren: thank you, mr. speaker. the time is now. this week we watched as our nation's debt reached an unprecedented level. $15 trillion. this debt crisis was caused by past administrations and past congresses who refused to say, no more spending.

washington spends too much and is underwater. because of that our national security and solvency and the standard of living for our children and grandchildren is in jeopardy. mr. speaker, the time is now for this congress to pass immediate, bold and permanent spending reforms that will hold all future congresses accountable for their spending. and now we have the opportunity to do just that. by passing a balanced budget amendment to our constitution. let's forever change the way that washington spends money and bring accountability back to congress by passing the balanced budget amendment to the constitution. we've come close before but there's no more excuses. the time is now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. posey, who is a member of the financial services committee and as a realtor may want to comment

on some of the remarks made here today regarding the ability of people to borrow money under certain circumstances. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. posey: thank you, mr. speaker. first i will comment on the value of buying homes on credit. i think it's a pretty good idea. but when you go to get qualified for a home, the rule of thumb is that you should buy a home roughly not more than 2 1/2 times your annual income. if you compare that to our known debt of $15 trillion, our revenues of about $2.2 trillion, you see, if our debt was a home loan, it would be 14 times our annual income. no lender would loan you money under those circumstances, they would say, you are bankrupt far beyond any possibility of recovery. and that doesn't include the $60 trillion unfunded liabilities for social security, medicare and medicaid. so, i don't know if that was really a good analogy. now to my point, there's an old

political axiom that says, any time you promise to steal from peter to pay paul, one thing you usually happens. paul votes for you. total revenues, as i just said in answer to the chairman's question, are about $2.2 trillion. total expenses the federal government spends, $3.6 trillion. where's the money come from? rather than balancing our budget like every hardworking american 's family, 49 other states, and virtually every local government in the country, congress instead currently puts about 40% of every -- what has been described as, vote-buying dollar it spends on our kids and our grandkids' credit cards. to the point where each american family's share of the national debt is about $125,000. in excess of $125,000. it will be hard to stop the spending. it will be like taking drugs

away from an addict. since congress, republicans and democrats, have not shown the political will to be accountable, i believe a voter-mandated balanced budget constitutional amendment is the only hope this country has to preserve the american experiment and i urge members of this body to begin thinking about the next generation instead of the next election. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. connolly: mr. speaker, today this house will vote on the momentous issue of amending the constitution of the united states. all of us should understand this is no symbolic vote. this is not a routine legislative act. we're asked -- asked to consider amending the most sacred document of a free people with a provision not contemplated by the founders. the argument is propounded that the times demand it, there is no

other choice, public opinion favors it. but as legislators we must hold ourselves to a higher threshold to amend the constitution. is the proposal essential, did the founders fail to consider the issue that now must be addressed in and only in a constitutional framework? is there no legislative remedy? what are the negative and foreseeable consequences of such a constitutional mandate? and importantly we must remember that buck for one, -- but for one, all constitutional amendments are written in indell i believe ink. -- indelible ink. i must oppose the proposed amendment before us. it does not pass the higher constitutional threshold we must insist on. we balanced the budget just four -- just a decade ago for four consecutive years, without such an amendment. it was a matter of political will. fiscal discipline and successful economic growth. there is no evidence that says potential cannot be resurrected. there's ample evidence, however,

that this constitution -- institution lacks the will and courage to institute the policies necessary. political failure can and must be addressed here and failing that at the ballot box. the corrective is forging a political consensus, not amending the constitution. in fact, to leap to the latter, as an expedient is to admit the collapse of our democratic constitutions and to abandon all faith in a collective ability to respond. i refuse to recant my faith in our ability to make the difficult choices necessary to achieve the desired goals of debt reduction and balanced fiscal performance. the proposed amendment also fails another test. do no harm. had this amendment been in place during the economic contraction we just experienced -- i ask for one more minute. mr. nadler: i yield the gentleman one more minute. mr. connolly: we would have abandoned the economic field to the darwinian forces at work and gearpted that the great recession became the second great depression. condemning our citizens to their own fate, one which would have

been characterized for a generation of want, double-digit unemployment and endemic poverty. why would any member of this body consciously choose such a course, especially when there are alternatives, although painful ones? perhaps it's easier to pander to the clamor of the moment. or to seek out the you is ductively easy answers. perhaps we seek to mask and ideological agenda to starve the government investment, cloaked in the more respectable argument of a constitutional amendment made necessary to balance the budget. for me the founders' silence on this matter of the constitution was intentional. they understood and expected that congress would meet its duties and do its job. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. desjarlais.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mr. desjarlais: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, no one can deny that our nation's on an unsustainable spending path that will lead this country to bankruptcy. our national debt is now a staggering $15 trillion and rising daily. in the past 50 years the budget has been balanced just six times , a losing record that has seen our deficit explode from $300 billion to $15 trillion. congress has tried spending caps, time and time again. one congress sets them just to see the next congress undo them. that's why we must have this amendment. a balanced budget amendment will finally force the federal government to live within its means. not just as congress, but for generations to come. politicians love their polls. a recent poll shows that 75% of americans favor a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. if we as congressmen are true in

representing the people who sent us here, this is the day that we set partisan differences aside and listen to the people. 3/4 of americans want this. we only need 2/3 of our members to make this happen. it is no secret to anyone here that congress suffers from a 90% disapproval rating and i believe it's because the american people are sick and tired of partisan politics and that their voices fall on deaf ears. today we have a chance to show the american people that we are listening, that we do care about them and that we do hear their voices. republicans should embrace this bill. democrats should embrace this bill. the president of the united states should embrace this bill because clearly the american people embrace this bill. it is a rare opportunity where we all win. let us return to our districts with our heads held high, tell our constituents that their voices were heard, that we listened. let's hug our children and

grandchildren and tell them, today we made history. and we have taken a giant step towards securing their future. for the sake of this great nation, do the right thing, pass this resolution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, how much time do we have, please? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york has 29 minutes. mr. nadler: and the other side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia has 51 minutes. mr. nadler: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. tipton, who is the chairman of the agriculture, energy and trade subcommittee of the small business committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. tipton: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, generations of americans from now will stand in

judgment of the choices that we make today. in my district, as i've traveled and visited with people from the farm and ranch community to small business owners to families around their kitchen tables, the message is clear. they're frustrated that washington does not live under the same rules that they do. those families gather each night to be able to balance their budget. small businesses do it every day. 49 of our 50 states balance their budget. and the question is always rised -- raised, why doesn't washington live under the same rules? we look at our european counterparts right now. greece, itsly, struggling under -- grease, italy, struggling under their crushing debt, will we follow that same path or will we pick a better way?

mr. speaker, the time has come, the day has arrived and the hour is now. we have an opportunity to stand up for the american people. the one thing that we can all understand as we debate the different sides of this issue is one important point that is not debatable, $15 trillion in debt. . our children, our grandchildren, those of us today, we need to be standing up for responsibility. this congress at this time has that opportunity. the choice we make here today does not end the debate. we return it to our states, to the people who sent us here, to make that final choice. i think the answer will be clear. the time has come for this congress to embrace a balanced budget, to stand up and do what

every american does every day. we need to pass this bill and we need to pass it now. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. rokita, a member of the budget committee, and a leader on this issue. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. rokita: i thank the gentleman from virginia. mr. speaker, i rise today as a co-sponsor of this bipartisan bill in full support of it. rarely do we have a chance in this body to make fundamental difference. it's so easy as i have learned in the short 10 months for members of this body to say no. instead of taking a personal responsibility to make the tough decisions that need to be made.

this morning we have that chance. i don't think this chance will come closer in our orbit for a very long time. if we can pass language out of this house this morning, the senate has to vote on it. the senate majority leader cannot table it. and because it's a constitutional amendment, it has nothing to do with the president. he can't veto it. he doesn't have to sign it. it goes right to the states. and why is that so important? why is that so different? because finally the people of this country, of the state of indiana, of my beloved fourth district will have a chance to tell us by ratification of this amendment whether or not they want to live within their means. instead of passing their bills from the federal government spending that's occurring here, $8 bill to $12 billion a day more in debt, whether they are done passing it on to their kids

and grandkids and i believe speaking specifically to those of us who represent senior citizens, that most of them have grandchildren. and they don't want their bills passed on to them. those that say no today, those that say no today are really saying no because they don't want to lose control. they don't want the people to decide. they'd rather have that in their hands. they'd rather keep kicking that heavier and heavier can down the road so that citizens like this, teddy and ryan, and their kids can pay the bill. i ask the gentleman for an additional minute. mr. goodlatte: i'm happy to yield an additional minute to the gentleman from indiana. mr. rokita: that's what this is about. ladies and gentlemen of this chamber, mr. speaker, there are two constituencies out there. and mr. posey from florida said

it well. we are robbing peter to paul. why that works around here is because paul can vote for us. i ask every member here today, who stands for the constituency that can't directly vote for them next election? who stands for their constituency that doesn't exist yet? but will. and because of the decision that is are made here on this floor in this federal government and this town, where too often up is down and down is up and black is white and white is black, we don't represent the constituency . we don't prioritize the right constituency at the right time. this is a chance to do this. this is a chance to not let us have that out anymore. to make us have the tax fight. to make us have the cut spending fight, but not allow the option of kicking the can down the road

to make people who aren't here today pay for it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: at this time it's my pleasure to yield three minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. pence, who is not only the vice chairman of the constitution subcommittee, but has been a great partner this this effort to have a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. pence: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise today in support of h.j.res. 2, a balanced budget amendment to the u.s. constitution, and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pence: this is a challenging time in the life of our nation. our economy is struggling under the failed economic policies of the recent past and under a mountain range of debt. we have an unchecked spendthrift federal government that's placing a burden of insurmountable debt on our children and grandchildren.

washington, d.c., isn't just broke, it's broken. and the time has come to change the way we spend the people's mon which. and to do -- money. and to do that in our national charter. the time has come for a balanced budget amendment to the constitution of the united states. i want to take a moment to commend just a few people who brought us to this day. i want to commend speaker boehner and the republican leadership for ensuring that for the first time in 15 years we would have an up or down vote in the house and senate on a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. but i also want to commend the gentleman from virginia, congressman goodlatte, who throughout those last 15 years as been as we say back home, like a dog with a bone, on a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. his tenacity, his commitment to this reform not singularly but predominantly has brought us to this day and i commend him from my heart. our nation is singing--sinking

in a sea of debt. just this week we passed $15 trillion in national debt. and the american people are tired of the same old arguments. they want solutions not slogans. they want reforms, not rhetoric. the balanced budget amendment to the constitution is an authentic, long-term solution to run away federal spending, deficits and debt, by both political parties. and the measure we bring to the floor today is a bipartisan pressure. it is nearly identical to the version that last passed the house with bipartisan support. it requires simply that the federal government not spend in more than it takes. it requires a 3/5 vote to raise the nation's debt ceiling and requires any increase in taxes be by a true majority roll call vote. now, while i support this historic version, this bipartisan version of the balanced budget amendment, i do regret it doesn't go further.

i would that we would have brought a version of the balanced budget amendment to the floor that included a cap on federal spending, strict limits on the judiciary, and a higher hurdle for congress to raise taxes on the american people. but while this version of the balanced budget amendment doesn't have everything i want, i believe it will move the debate forward. adding to our national charter the expectation of the american people that this national government live within their means, that the income meet the outgo, would be a historic addition. so i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan version of the balanced budget amendment. let's send it to the senate by the requisite supermajority. and then let's let the states decide whether the time has come to put in our national charter the requirement that this government live within the means of the american people. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york is

recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes to the gentlelady from new york, ms. velazquez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for two minutes. ms. velazquez: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from new york for yielding. i rise in strong opposition to this misguided amendment which will visit harm on working families, prevent government from responding to crisis, and cripple the u.s. economy. under this amendment it will become difficult to raise the debt ceiling. putting our country at greater risk of default. it is alarming that so shortly after averting the most recent danger of a default, the authors of this amendment will endanger our nation's credit. equally disturbing should a war, domestic crisis, or natural disaster strike, our government could find its hands tied, incapable of responding swiftly. when crisis occur, congress must

have the flexibility to respond. it is shortsighted and dangerous to sit -- cede this authority from the legislative branch. not only will this amendment effectively slow the response to future catastrophe, but it will also undercut our current economic recovery. eliminatinged 15 million jobs. the fact -- eliminating 15 million jobs. the fact is if you like 9% unemployment, you will love this amendment. mr. speaker, our government has in the past been able to balance its growth and create surplus. when president clinton left office, we had a $5 trillion surplus. however a war unpaid for, coupled with tax cuts for the wealthy, erased this windfall and led to our current fiscal problems. if we truly wish to tackle the deficit, the most effective thing we could do is create new

jobs. in the 1990's, economic prosperity helped drive deficits down rather than wasting this institution's time on a cheap political stunt, which has zero chance of becoming law, we should create opportunity and work to restore the american dream. that is a deficit reduction plan all of us could support. vote down this misguided amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: at this time i yield three minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot, who is a distinguished member of the house jerk ---house judiciary committee. mr. chabot: our national debt has reached a staggering $15 trillion. we are currently borrowing 43 cents on every dollar spent here in washington. think of that. 43 cents on a dollar. $1 trillion had to be borrowed from china. our very sovereignty is at risk

when you look at numbers like that. it's outrageous. our great nation is on a dangerous path of fiscal irresponsibility. directed by a reckless addiction to spending here in washington. research has consistently shown that the american people want a balanced budget amendment. in fact, a recent survey found that 81% of those polled support the requirement that the federal government balance its budget each year. just like american families have to do. today each of us will have the opportunity to choose sides casting any -- aye vote cassing with the american people or a nay vote opposing what the american people are demanding. the balanced budget amendment is a game changer. it will hold congress' feet to the fire, forcing us to live within our means just as every american family and every american business must do every year. it has become commonplace for washington to spend money it doesn't have for projects it

doesn't need. this is an unacceptable position for us to be in. our constituents deserve better. washington's spending binge has put a wet blanket over our economy. small businesses are struggling to stay afloat and according to the bureau of labor statistics, a staggering 26 million americans are unemployed, underemployed, or given up looking for a job altogether. small business owners tell me that the uncertainty that they are going through right now makes it so they won't hire people because they don't know how much money they are going to have. what we are doing here in washington puts those small businesses at risk. that's why they are not hiring. passing h.j.res. 2, the balanced budget amendment, would be a huge step in the right direction. and in my opinion is the only thing that will actually work over the long run to get our spending under control here in washington.

it's interesting, the president recently weighed in on this and one of the things that he said about the american people is that they are lazy. what an incredible comment to make. that's absolutely not true. that's not what the problem with the economy is. the problem is is that the government sector is sucking up so much of the funding now that the private sector has no funds to invest or go out and hire people and create jobs. that's the problem. not as the president said that the american people are lazy. that's absolutely not true. it's outrageous. this is not a democratic or republican issue. this is an american issue. i had the opportunity to weigh in on this amendment back in 1995 when it was last voted on here in congress. i voted for it alongside most of my republican colleagues, as well as 72 democratic members of the house. i would urge them to vote with us today. let's pass this. it's in the interest of the american people. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: how much time does

each side have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york has 31 minutes. the gentleman from virginia has 40 minutes. mr. nadler: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. stutzman, who is the chairman of the economic opportunity subcommittee of the house veterans' affairs committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes. . mr. stutzman: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank you, mr. speaker. it's a great privilege and honor to stand here today during this crucial and very timely debate. standing here and listening to the debate on the floor is one that i believe americans have been expecting for quite some time. because americans are looking to washington to see if leadership is going to comforward and do what -- come forward and do what american family does every day, what small businesses do every day. they make sure that they don't

spend more money than what they have. what our national debt tops -- when our national debt tops $15 trillion, it's clear that we are broke. when the senate refuses to pass any budget at all, something clearly is wrong. when each child born today inherits nearly $48,000 worth of debt, something must be changed. my wife and i have two young sons, payton and preston. they're 10 years old and 5 years old and their lives are entirely in front of them. and what we do today on this floor will determine the outcome for them and their family and for their children and for their grandchildren because this is not -- this has not been a problem that's happened just under the democrats, under their control and under president obama, but this has happened over the last 30 years, under both republicans and democrats. that is why this amendment is so important.

now, we'd all like to stand here and say, you know, one of the just need to do the right thing and i agree with that. but the problem is, over the last 30 years, washington has not done the right thing. we have accumulated $15 trillion of debt. debt is a disease, it threatens to kill us. today we must act decisively and we must act permanently and let the american people vote on our constitution, to allow them to send their voice to washington and say, enough is enough. small businesses and families are waiting and watching to see if washington is going to increase the taking on top of the enormous convoluted tax code. i support this resolution and i ask my colleagues to support it as well and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the

gentleman from virginia, mr. gingrey, who is a member of the house energy and commerce committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for -- georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding. and i stand here in proud support of h.res. 2. you know, i was listening to all argue -- listening to arguments on both sides of the aisle but particularly from my colleagues, the democrats, in regard to the gentleman from north carolina talking about the ability for individuals to balance their own budget. he made a very convincing argument, a very convincing personal argument, but i would like to remind him that in 1995, the last time we had an opportunity, i wasn't here then, maybe he was, but the last time we had an opportunity to vote on a balanced budget amendment, some 16 years ago, and it failed by one single vote, the debt that this country has accumulated since that time is $9 trillion. so, the rest of us obviously

need some constraint. we have prove than we do not have the discipline to balance the budget -- proven that we do not have the discipline to balance the budget of this country. that's how we get to $15 trillion of debt. so i would say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, please support this. this is an opportunity for us not only to show that fiscal responsibility, the 75% of the country want us to show, but also that they want us to show that spirit of bipartisanship. break the gridlock. i want to take just a moment, mr. speaker, to commend the gentleman from virginia, representative goodlatte. i sometimes as a physician member think that there are too many attorneys in this body. but thank god for the gentleman from virginia and for his ability and understanding of the constitution. because he has gone to the democratic side and the republican side, not just this

session but for years, promoting this balanced budget amendment. and bringing us all together in a bipartisan way. to do something for the american people. and as the gentleman before me from indiana said, for our children and our grandchildren. so, without question, the time has come. this is my opportunity to cast a vote, the most important vote that i will have cast in nine years. could i ask the gentleman for an additional 30 seconds? mr. goodlatte: i'm happy to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from virginia. mr. gingrey: i thank the gentleman for yielding. you know, an opportunity like this just seldom comes and as i say, it's been 16 years since we have had this opportunity. don't pass on this. let's make sure that we -- and we have to do it in a bipartisan way because it takes a 2/3 vote. and i disagree with the naysayers that say, well, this

has no chance of passing. god help us if this has no chance of passing. this is a one thing that we can do for this country to get us back on the right track and finally prove to the american people that we do have the discipline to protect their money and protect our children and our grandchildren and with that, mr. speaker, i'll yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york continues to reserve. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, who is the chairman of the conservation, energy and forestry subcommittee, my subcommittee, on the house agriculture committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognize for two minutes. mr. thompson: i thank the gentleman from virginia. it's no secret, mr. speaker, washington has a spending addiction. congress has demonstrated, regardless of which party is in charge, the out-of-control spending just does not stop.

each congress spending and budget reforms are enacted only to be revised or ignored by the next. this body has reliably circumvented any real budget process, even its own rules, in order to fulfill its spending addiction. routine abuses and budget gimmicks such as emergency designations are designed to skirt budget enforcementment roles and disguise the real level of spending. similar to rampant drug abuse in the 1980's that led to addiction and violence, our spending habits have led to a debt crisis that boards on an overs -- borders on an overdose. we're here today to consider h.j.res. 2, a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. most importantly the balanced budget amendment will discourage congress from circumventing its fiscal responsibilities because a constitutional amendment cannot be revised or ignored. this measure is the only way to force the hand of congress to -- towards fiscal responsibility,

by ensuring the policymakers just say no to reckless spending. many economists and experts agree, adoption of such an amendment will begin to address this nation's looming debt crisis and lay a stronger path to long-term economic growth. the american people overwhelmingly back the budget balanced -- back the balanced budget amendment. that's exactly why h.j.res. 2 already has the strong support of the majority of my fellow representatives, including 242 bipartisan co-sponsors. our constituents understand what it means to live within their means and they expect nothing less from the federal government. it's time for this body to come clean. it's time for each member to decide whether or not this country will continue down a reckless path of debt and despair or quit living beyond our means cold turkey. it's time to rid this chamber of its reckless spending addiction and time for congress to just say no by voting yes on h.j.res. 2. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i now yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. sanchez. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady from new york is recognized for two minutes. california, i apologize. ms. sanchez: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to h.j.res. 2, the republican plan to amend the constitution, to reduce government investments and codify economic stagnation. we can all agree that it's important to get the federal deficit under control. however, the amendment republicans are proposing is absolutely the wrong way to do it. it should all be very familiar to anyone who has experienced california's budget problems or even observed them from afar. it should be familiar because just like in california this legislation would require that a supermajority of both the house of representatives and the senate agree to any bill which raises federal revenue. this not only means potential tax increases but also any bill that allows tax cuts to expire. in effect, the republican majority is insisting that the only way the federal government can tackle its deficit is by reducing programs like pell grants, unemployment benefits

and infrastructure projects like federal highways. these are the very programs that help people keep their head above water during tough economic times or help them achieve the american dream. and time and time again the american people have said that cutting these programs sun acceptable -- programs is unacceptable. we should look at ways to cut waste, however it's foolish to insist on severe cuts to vital programs which help people during an economic downturn. furthermore, the california experience has shown that it is practically impossible for 60% of a political body to agree on revenue increases, no matter how limited they are or how much sense they might make. california has tried this flawed plan and guess what? it doesn't work. california's fiscal situation becomes increasingly difficult each year because of this supermajority requirement. do we really want the same at the federal government level? i cannot and will not support legislation which would impose california's flawed fiscal system on the federal

government. i urge my colleagues to learn from history, from a real-life example, my home state of california, and reject this crushing and foolish amendment. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentlewoman to say that 49 out of 50 states have a balanced budget requirement and while she cites california as perhaps the worst example, and it may be the worst example, still the fiscal situation of california is much better than the fiscal situation here in washington. the $25 billion deficit that they have to deal with this year, and they have to deal with it, for a state that has 1/8 the population of the country of america, which taken nationwide would mean a $200 billion deficit nationwide. we have a $1.3 trillion deficit, more than six times as much.

and this is a good discipline, it's worked in the states, it will work here as well. it's now my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, a member of the appropriations committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. mr. flake: mr. speaker, i doubt that i can match the volume that's been displayed today, usually partisan accusations as to who's responsible for budget mess that we're in. but i think that all of us, we republicans, for example, in our candid moments would admit that we were headed toward this fiscal crisis long before the current president took the wheel. but we're in this together. it's been decisions made by republicans and democrats, to expand entitlement programs and to expand discretionary spending, that have put us in the situation we're in today. i think we would also concede that any bout of fiscal discipline we've had over the past couple of decades has been caused by or at least accompanied by statutory spending caps that have been put in place. the problem is, those only last for a few years and then this body waives them. so we need a backstop. we need a constitutional backstop that will force us to

make decisions that we know have to be made. it is sad commentary on this body that we have to have a constitutional budget amendment to force us to do our jobs of prioritizing spending. but i think with a $15 trillion deficit we can concede that we need it. so this won't make the decisions for us, we'll still have to make the tough decisions going ahead. but we need it nonetheless and i urge adoption of this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, how much toim-- time do we both have now? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york has 29 minutes. the gentleman from texas has -- or virginia has 31 1/2 minutes. mr. nadler: we'll reserve once more. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce, a member of the financial services committee.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new mexico is recognized for two minutes. mr. pearce: thank you, mr. speaker, and thanks to the gentleman from virginia for bringing this forward to us. the american debt was downgraded about two months ago. we're approaching junk bond status in the minds of certain debt raters. it's not just that we have the $15 trillion debt, that's significant, but we have no apparent means or way of paying it off. our deficit, that is the short fall this year, is $1.5 trillion, which will be added to that $15 trillion during the course of spending the money. so it's not just that we're in debt, it's that we're broke. and also the raters have seen that we have gone to social security, both parties, for the past 70 years have taken every cent out of the social security lock box and spent it. so it's not just that we're in debt $15 trillion, it's that we have taken everything out of the piggy bank and we have spent that. and to my friends who are

saying, we can continue to borrow money, that's also very inaccurate. we could borrow money when we ran deficits of $300 billion, that was the amount that we ran during the last year of president bush. $300 billion we can borrow in the world. but when we went to the trillion-dollar deficits under president obama, there is no nation in the world capable of lending $1 trillion. china cannot lend $1 trillion, they're total economy is -- their total economy is $6 trillion so the raters looking at our economy say, not only are they broke, but they have no apparent way to pay it back. it's time to say that to the american people. so this resolution is reasonable, it simply says that washington is going to do what you do as the american family in order to pay off your bills, you tighten your belt, you live within your means. that's what we're suggesting with this balanced budget

amendment. that we live within our means. that we do not spend money that we don't have. h.j.res. 2 is a commonsense solution to a serious problem that america faces. i'll support it and urge support and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield four minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for four minutes. mr. markey: the republicans call this bill a balanced budget amendment, but it is not balanced because it will blow a hole in the budget of vital programs that millions of americans depend on. it's unneeded, and will undermine our struggling economy. the republicans want us to makele the constitution because they cannot manage this institution. this amendment is a means to an

end. it's a means for republicans to end medicare, to end social security and medicaid, to end every anti-poverty program. and why? because they harbor an ancient animosity towards all of those programs and their plan is to leave them as debt-soaked relics of an era where they actually cared about poor people, the elderly in our end because the republican plan will cut critical health care and anti-poverty programs, put them on a starvation diet and leave vulnerable americans with the crumbs. our economy now has a 9% unemployment rate. you know what that means? 46 million americans today live in poverty. do you want to know what poverty is in america in 2011? that's a family of four living

on $22,000 a year. there are nine million families living in that poverty. 15.9 million children live in poverty today. that's one in five children in our country living in poverty. those are the programs that they want to cut here today. for the poorest children in america in 2011, there are almost 50 million americans at risk of not having enough food, 16 million children in danger of not going to bed tonight with a meal, one in six seniors now live in poverty, dependent upon medicare, dependent upon medicaid. each of them now at grave risk because of their plan here today. their plan is really a robin hood in reverse. take from the neediest and give to the greediest. that is the plan.

now, let's go back into the way back machine, all the way back to the year 2000, the last time we voted on a balanced budget here in congress, 2000. bill clinton was president. it passed. the budget balanced. and the country was feeling good. the economy was booming. and then george bush takes over january of 2001. the republicans controlled the house. the republicans controlled the senate. what do they do? huge tax breaks for billionaires and millionaires, two wars which were not paid for, iraq and afghanistan, all on the republicans' shoulders and they then turned a blind eye as wall street turned the entire economy into a casino which then cascaded into the biggest long-standing recession that we've seen since the great depression, upon the shoulders of the poor, the sick, the elderly, the ordinary families killing themselves to pay for their mortgages each day.

you don't need a constitutional amendment, ladies and gentlemen. republicans, my good friends. you are the supercommittee meeting right now down the corridor. you know what you should do? take away those $40 billion in tax breaks for the oil companies. they don't need them. take away the $700 billion in new nuclear weapons programs. we don't have any need for those nuclear programs. kill those programs. look at the tax breaks for the millionaires and billionaires. they don't need them. cut them right now. all of you have taken a pledge, no reduction in the tax breaks for billionaires, no reduction in defense spending. you have tied your own hands even as you with crocodile tears come out here and say how much you care about balancing the budget, how much you care about the american economy. the proof will come next week when you do not stand up in order to take the tough actions right now.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair would remind members of the body to address their comments to the chair and not to other members of the floor. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself one minute to address the chair but in response to the comments of the gentleman from massachusetts. we do need to look at that way back machine. i hear the gentleman's complaints about decisions made by republicans. in the last 50 years, the gentleman has been here for many of those years, in the last 50 years the congress has balanced its budget a mere six times. 13 of those years republicans were in control of the house and four of those years we had balanced budgets, including the year the gentleman mentioned. and in that year the gentleman voted no on the balanced budget that was passed by this congress that year. and the year before that we had a balanced budget. the gentleman voted no. in the year before that, had a balanced budget. then in 1998 we had a balanced

budget. the gentleman voted no every single time that a balanced budget was offered in this congress. in fact for the 37 years that democrats controlled the congress in the last 50 years, only twice did they do it. now, i have to agree with the gentleman about something and that is that social security -- i yield myself an additional 30 seconds to say that social security and medicare are endangered. do you know why they are endangered? because we have a $15 trillion debt. in all the years we didn't have a balanced budget, what did the democrats do? they went into the social security trust fund and took every penny of it and spent it on something else. how ironic it will be that debt that we are transferring to the next generation, all of that debt will be on our children and grandchildren, and when they need social security and medicare, it won't be there for them. not because of anything in a balanced budget amendment but because of the debt that we have accumulated. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, social security and medicare will be there unless we pass this balanced budget amendment because this balanced budget amendment will cause the inability to pay for them. the trust fund is amply funded right now for social security. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time i am prepared to yield two minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. gardner, a member of the energy and commerce committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. gardner: my constituents have a simple question for people participating in this debate today, what part of broke don't you understand? what part of the fact that we are borrowing 42 cents out of every dollar don't you get? you know what happens to the everyday american if they borrow 42 cents out of every dollar? time after time after time it's bankruptcy. they lose their homes. they lose their ability to provide food for their

families. they go broke just like this country is going broke today. only congress doesn't have to pay an overdraft fee. when we write more money -- checks for more money than we have, we are not getting an overdraft fee, we are passing the buck. we are putting our future into great debt that they can't sustain for current day spending. we shouldn't be passing the buck. we should pass the b.b.a., the balanced budget amendment. i come from the state of colorado. served in the colorado state legislature where we have a strong balanced budget amendment, and you know what that forces us to do? it forces us to make tough choices, to make the right decisions for the people of colorado, to make sure we are indeed balancing our budget. sure, it means that there are some very difficult decisions that have to be made, but that's exactly what we were sent here to do. we weren't sent here -- we weren't sit here to fiddle while the treasury burns. we were sent here to solve the

greatest -- one of the greatest challenges that this country faces, and that is growing an insurmountable debt and deficit. i would urge my colleagues to pass this resolution. this congress cannot make choices on its own. we need the guidance of a balanced budget amendment to restrain the unrestrained fiscal mess we are in right now. in 1995 when we passed the balanced budget amendment, the debt's grown $9 trillion since then. our experience in colorado and the 49 states that has a balanced budget amendment show when we have a requirement forcing us to balance the budgets, we will do just that. don't pass the buck. pass the b.b.a. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield the gentleman from pennsylvania two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is

recognized for two minutes. mr. fattah: since it's the season of thanksgiving, a child born in our country, we could celebrate it. the truth is not as a young american you are born with all this debt. what you're born is as a citizen of the greatest country anywhere in the world, the most -- the wealthiest, most powerful nation in the world made off of decisions that are being decried here. we could not balance our budget and win world war i or ii or build 40,000 miles of highway, or build the land grant college system. and my church we borrowed a mortgage to build a church, and you pay for it over time. these 49 states that we hear, these imaginary balanced budget amendments, all of those statesboro money. they have a capital budget.

they borrow money to build bridges and highways and roads. this nonsense that families don't borrow money to buy homes or cars. republicans in the majority can do better than this. this is not a debate between democrats and republicans. we don't need a balanced budget. we need a budget as a country that retains our leadership position in the world. we don't want to have a balanced budget and a weak military. we don't want to have a balanced budget but not be able to take care of the needs that have propeled our country forward. we just honored john glenn and neal armstrong, astronauts who went into space. we didn't cothat on a balanced budget. we said we were going to lead in terms of the race to the moon and we led. this country deserves better, and the republicans who are here, let us address the real issue. the real issue is that we have

a 70-year low in the amount of resources coming into the government because we've cut taxes. the gentleman says, well, where did we borrow $1 trillion? well, we can borrow it from tax expenditures we are going to provide this tax year, many to the wealthiest people in our country. we have the ability to pay our bills. we need to make the decision to do it and leave the constitution alone. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. kingston, who is the chairman of the agricultural appropriations subcommittee of the appropriations committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. kingston: thank you, mr. speaker and mr. goodlatte. an amendment to the united states constitution should never be taken lightly. it's a sacred and profound document. but 15 years ago when mr. goodlatte and i and a number of

others first came to town, we voted to amend that constitution. we were joined not only by all the republicans but by 72 democrats. now some of those very 72 who voted yes have changed their mind. we're hearing the same old argument. social security and medicare. when all else goes wrong in democrat liberal land, you start scarring seniors, children, teachers, first responders, critical programs and saying whatever the bill is this bill threatens them. one of the worst things you can do to social security and medicare is to go broke, and since that vote 15 years ago when it failed in the senate by one single member, we have accumulated $9.2 trillion in debt. balancing the budget is what 49 states do, what every city does, what businesses and families do. it's a matter of survival.

it's not a radical concept. oh, don't people in greece wish that they had a balanced budget all those many years? and what of their social security and medicare programs right now? what will happen to the seniors in greece without those critical programs? if their government had done the prudent thing, the right thing just as we tried to do 15 years ago, what a different picture it would be in fwreast. but you know, greece is -- would be in greece. but you know, greece is not trying to defy the laws of financial gravity. america seems to be doing it. for every dollar we spend, 40 cents is borrowed, and yet we are choosing to ignore all the many red flags that are around us. but when the whole thing goes broke and melts down, won't our children say, what were you thinking? you know, mr. speaker, this vote today is not about the next election. it is truly about the next generation. vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york is

recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes to the gentlelady from wisconsin, ms. moore. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from wisconsin is recognized for two minutes. ms. moore: and thank you for recognizing me, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to h.j.res. 2, the so-called -- so-called balanced budget amendment. and i also rise, mr. speaker, to point out the nefarious, cynical intergenerational warfare that has been raised as an argument for passing this misguided so-called balanced budget amendment. to say that, you know, we want to extract $2 trillion over the next decade from programs that benefit seniors like social security and medicare and say we're doing it, to -- doing it to keep from imposing a burden on our children and grandchildren, as if this balanced budget amendment

benefited those children, mr. speaker this program will devastate public education, it will devastate the federal government's current mandatory spending and pell grants, a program that's designed to help us meet the global challenges of the future by educating our assets, our children. it's a program that in the next decade will take a half trillion dollars out of the children's health insurance program. it's a program that will exacerbate the hunger that children face right now. our w.i.c. and food stamp program, the earned tax income credits, we have now one in five children today that are going to bed hungry. so when we say we want to balance the budget, we are balancing them on the backs of our children. and those children that we are trying to prevent or we say that we are trying to save must be

the children of those heirs, those 1% that we are now enriching. and with that, mr. speaker, i would reluctantly yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. schilling, a member of the agriculture committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. schilling: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd also like to thank mr. goodlatte for giving me the time today. you know, we continue to hear a common thread, let's raise taxes on our job creators with no solution to our spending problem . i rise today as the people's house prepares to vote for an amendment to our constitution that would require congress and the president to balance the budget. i look forward to voting in favor of this amendment today. 15 years ago an amendment nearly identical to this one passed the house with strong bipartisan

support. but failed by one single vote in the senate. since that time our debt has tripled. did you know that on wednesday our national debt surpassed $15 trillion? and it has been nearly 950 days since the senate has passed a budget. not to mention the 20 jobs that are sitting over there that they've decided not to act upon. the american people deserve better. you deserve a credible plan to help get our fiscal house in order. grow our economy and get folks back to work. it's clear, though, we cannot borrow or spend our way out of this mess, we also cannot afford to put off badly needed but difficult decisions. we need to tackle this unsustainable spending addiction head-on. since coming to washington, my fellow freshman colleagues and i have helped change the way the conversation has been held here

for years from how much can we spend to how much can we save? this is a good start but we can do much more to get our country on a better fiscal path and save the american dream for our kids and our grandkids. we have the duty to leave our kids and our grandkids with a country better off than it is now. we have the opportunity here to fundamentally change the way washington does business, by supporting a balanced budget amendment. it's time for washington to balance the budget, i'm pleased to vote in strong support of balanced budget amendment and will continue working on ways to get our fiscal house in order. grow -- order, grow america's economy and create jobs. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: i -- mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong opposition to h.j.res. 2. it represents an attack on the middle class and the most

vulnerable in our society. by the grover norquist tea party republicans. you see, there is no fiscal emergency but the fiscal crisis has been manufactured by the tea partyiers along with grover norquist and the republicans that represent them for the purposes of tricking the american people into thinking that america can't pay its bills . we paid our debts, we can pay our debts and we'll continue to pay our debts. just like families of america who incur debt as a normal course of taking care of their families, we've heard a lot of analogies to the federal government should balance its budget like a family, but how many 99ers, how many families do you know that can go out and purchase a car for cash? how many of those 99ers, how many of those families out there working can afford to pay for a house cash?

everybody out there incurs debt for legitimate expenses and this nation has legitimate expenses that it has to pay debts for. like two wars, like a medicare part d supplement, like the bush tax cuts that they don't want to expire. so what they're doing, ladies and gentlemen, is they are trying to enshrine in the constitution what is already an unfair tax system. a system that favors the rich and balances the budget on the backs of the middle class. those are the people that pay for america's expenses, not the corporations and wealthy individuals. many of whom do not pay one red cent in taxes and you know it's true. and they know it's true.

so, ladies and gentlemen, i rise in strong opposition. this is shortsighted, mean-spirited, unfair, wrongful and i urge my colleagues to vote against it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. wasm, chairman of the -- walsh, chairman of the small business growth committee. mr. walsh: thank you, mr. speaker, and a big thank you to the gentleman from virginia for taking a lead, a very strong lead, on this issue. mr. speaker, like many of my fellow freshman, i was sent here to washington because we're broke. we have a government we can't afford, like all of us we were sent here, though, not just to cut spending. we were sent here hopefully to try to change the way this town does business so that we never get to this point again.

so that our kids and our grandkids aren't stuck with a bill they'll never be able to pay off. as a freshman in congress, the very first bill i introduced back in march was a balanced budget amendment. and it was a stronger balanced budget amendment than this. it included a spending limitation, it made it more difficult for myself and my colleagues to raise taxes. i support this balanced budget amendment with everything i've got because, again, we have an opportunity to do something fairly historic. and this amendment will enable us to do that. you know, i've learned in my year, almost a year as a congressman, that there's plenty hypocrisy in this chamber, on both sides of the aisle. the hypocrisy today is regrettably, mr. speaker, with too many of our democratic colleagues who really would like to vote for this but they simply

can't because of political reasons. and i would ask them, i would implore my democratic colleagues to just think about, again, what our kids and our grandkids will say and we throw their names around here often, what they will say to us 20, 30, 40 years down the road when they know we didn't exhibit the courage we need to exhibit right here and now. so i stand with my colleague from virginia in full support of this balanced budget amendment and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. engel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. engel: i thank my friend from new york and i rise in strong opposition to this piece of legislation. you know, with all due respect, i always enjoy listening to my republican friends lecture us about fiscal responsibility. may i remind them that when bill

clinton left office we had record surpluses and in eight years of george bush record deficits and may i remind my republican friends that for six of those eight years during the bush years republicans controlled both houses of the congress. so if we were going to do the right thing and attempt to balance our budget, we could have done so then. but what did we do then? we fought two wars on the credit card, we had tax cuts for the pealty, which we're now paying for -- for the wealthy, which we're now paying for in terms of our desits now, prescription drug program unpaid for, and so it seems to me that if we have the resolve to do it, you know, i love people who have newfound religion, but when they control the place -- controlled the place we went from a massive surpluses to massive deficits. now, this congress needs to work with the president in passing a jobs bill. this congress should be passing a robust transportation bill. this congress should get out of the business of attacking our labor, attacking seniors,

attacking women and do what the american people want us to do, put people back to work. a balanced budget amendment will ultimately lead to either draconian cuts in the social safety net for some of our nation's most cherished programs, like social security, medicare and medicaid, or significant tax hikes on the nation's middle class. this is nothing more than a gimmick to garner headlines while avoiding the tough decisions that the people have asked us to make. there may be times in the future when we need to run a surplus, there may be times when we need to run a deficit to stimulate the economy. this amendment handcuffs us and puts us in a straight january jacket where we have nowhere to move. i care and my constituents care very much about preserving medicare, medicaid and social security. i think that if we're going to get our budget to balance, it's not only cuts in programs that we need, although my friends on the other side of the aisle fret about defense cuts. we need to cut spending, yes, we

also need to raise taxes on those who can most afford to do it. the 1%. i think that's something we should consider. so while we think this is one-size-fits-all and we can all go home and say, well, we tried to save the republic, what i think this does is handcuff us for generations to come, makes it impossible for us to stimulate the economy and makes it impossible for us to continue those social service programs that the american people have come to rely on, medicare, medicaid and social security. i think we need to meet in a sensible center, not have something like this. let me finally say that what is truly absurd is we require only a simple majority to send our men and women in uniform into harm's way but the republican majority would require a supermajority to raise the nation's debt ceiling. we all saw how close our economy came to disaster with only a simple majority vote to raise the debt ceiling the last time. so i would say to my colleagues, vote no, let's do a job that we

were elected to do, let's make the tough choices, we don't need a balanced budget amendment. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself one minute to respond to my good friend from new york. i would just say to the gentleman that we do need to do the job but you don't have to look ahead to wonder what's going to happen. all you have to do is look back. over the last 50 years we've balanced the budget just six times. and we've run up a $15 trillion national debt. the gentleman has cited some criticism of republican votes but there are plenty of democratic votes, in the four years that the democrats were in control of this congress, just recently, we added $4 trillion to the national debt. now, the fact of the matter is, over the 50 years, 37 of those years democrats have controlled the house of representatives and only two of those 37 years was it balanced. so when the gentleman says that some years we'll run surpluses and some years we'll run

deficits, that's very true, but the history has been, almost all those years will run deficits unless we have a discipline in our constitution to require that we do otherwise. and i would also point out that in the four years since the gentleman has been here, and i've been here, that we've had balanced budgets, the gentleman, for i'm sure reasons that he felt were very justified, voted against all four of the budgets that balanced in this congress. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is prized -- is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: the fact is the reason this country is in such deficit is because of a deliberate republican crusade over the last 30 years to reduce taxes on the rich in order to deliberately to create huge deficits and then to use those deficits as the excuse to justify large cuts to gut social security and medicare and medicaid and education programs that they have never liked in the first place but

could not justify cutting without it. we used to tax -- taxes used to be 18% to 19% of the economy or g.d.p. now, they are about 14% of g.d.p. and yet the republicans won't increase it because we decrease the taxes on the rich and the corporation top corporations. we are not taxing the millionaires and billionaires the which we used to. the fact is you look at the history here, when ronald reagan took over as president of the united states, the entire national debt of the united states accumulated from george washington through jimmy carter was less than $800 billion. then you had 12 years of reagan and the first bush cutting taxes on the rich and when clinton took over you had a $4.3 trillion deficit. and it was expected to go much higher. we made the tough decisions, we voted for increased taxes in 1993 and for cutting the budget -- for cutting the budget. and when clinton left office eight years later the budge hab

balanced. from the time we made that vote in 1993, the deficit decreased every year until it became a surplus. then it increased every year. when bush ii took over we were looking at a $5.7 trillion surplus over the next 10 years and pay off the entire national debt. then we had those huge bush tax cuts and the unresponsible two wars. and when he left office we had a turn-around of $13 trillion and a recession which cause us the bigger deficits now. when the c.b.o. gave -- i'll give myself an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: when the c.b.o. estimated before president obama took office it said that the next year's deficit would be $1.2 trillion before he did anything. and i would remind us that the nondefense discretionary spending in this country has not gone up by a nickel. it adjusted for inflation and

population growth since 2001 when we had a huge surplus. the problem is that our taxes on the rich are too low. we cannot reach an agreement in the supercommittee because the republicans will not tax the rich. and that's the basic problem. and a balanced budget amendment will not solve that problem. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back and reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. speaker. i'll yield myself a minute to respond to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: first off, let me be very clear, when the gentleman talks about the since he wants to impose upon republicans for not balancing the budget, i think that's a very good argument. but since this is a bipartisan bill and dozens of his colleagues will be voting for this, i think it's because those who vote for it recognize that this is true on both sides of the aisle, that there has been a lack of tough decisions that have led to balanced budgets. every single year i vote for the toughest budget offered in this congress. those budgets never pass.

why? because there's no requirement that they do so. so what do we have? we have complaints on the other side of the aisle that there is a terrible plot on our part to bring about all kinds of harsh cuts. this balanced budget amendment doesn't make any distinction between whether you balance a budget by raising taxes or cutting spending. i'm going to do it to cut spending because i see lots of waste in our government and i voted for budgets that bring about a balance without raising taxes. but that is not the point here. the point is that it doesn't get done either way. i yield myself an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: as to the gentleman's complaints is that we haven't taxed the rich, my goodness. in the last congress under the control of your party you extended all of those tax cuts for everyone. everyone. and the fact of the matter is that the top 1% of american families pay 38%. 38% of the personal income taxes in this country today.

so -- and that, by the way, is up from 34% in 2001. so all of this can be on the table when we have a discussion about how to balance the budget. all we're debating here today is the principle of whether or not we should balance a budget and looking at the past history where we have not indeed balanced it but six times in 50 years. mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. west, who is not only a member of the house armed services committee but a great advocate for fiscal responsibility and the balanced budget amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. west: thank you, mr. speaker, and i want to thank my colleague from virginia and i want to rise and support h.j.res. 2 which is the balanced budget amendment. the united states of america has just topped $15 trillion in debt. $4.4 trillion of new debt has been added. in greece we see a debt to g.d.p. ratio of 128%. mr. speaker, in italy it's 120%

debt to g.d.p. ratio. the united states of america is now at 101% debt to g.d.p. ratio. it's about time we start to take a decision. are we going to be fiscally discipline? are we going to have fiscal responsibility? are we going to continue to bankrupt the future of our children and grandchildren because we were sent here to be elected officials, sent here to be leaders and we were afraid to make tough decisions? historically we won't make tough decisions. i have been here 11 months but i have to tell you we have to do something different. it has to start now or else what do i say, mr. speaker, to my two daughters, 18 and 14? am i going to say that i didn't have the courage to stand here today to make the tough decisions in order for them to have a bright and prosperous future in the united states of america? in fiscal year 2011 we saw a 6.5% increase in revenue in the united states of america. yet, we still had a $1.3

trillion we follows on the heels of a $1.42 trillion and $1.29 trillion deficit. now is time for a balanced budget amendment. if not now then when? when we hit $20 trillion in debt? mr. speaker, i think that each and every one of us here today when we cast our vote there needs to be that little yellow why next to our names, because if it's a -- yellow y next to our names because if it's a red n we are telling the american people we're not willing to stand up, we are not making ourselves fiscally responsible. i think that's absolutely apprehensible. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair notes that the gentleman from virginia has 15 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from new york has 13 minutes remaining. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: reserves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from virginia is

recognized. mr. goodlatte: it's my pleasure to yield to mr. johnson, a member of the house veterans' affairs committee and a supporter of the balanced budget amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. johnson: it's amazing we still keep talking about the bush-era tax cuts. those same tax cuts are today's current tax laws which have been affirmed by this congress, this sflat and signed into law by -- senate and signed into law by this president. so why we keep blaming financial woes on president bush is beyond me. but let's make one thing perfectly clear. the american people are not taxed too little. the problem is that washington spends too much. this has been going on for years and it needs to stop now. we need a balanced budget amendment. because washington has clearly indicated its inability to discipline itself. this balanced budget amendment offers congress and the president a very clear choice.

either stand with the already overtaxed american families and small businesses who have to balance their budgets on a daily basis or stand with the washington establishment that always demands more of the american people, more of their hard-earned tax dollars without any accountability with how they spend their money. american families have to stick to a budget every month, so why should the federal government be any different? we can't keep mortgaging our children's future to china. it's time to take a stand, mr. speaker. the tax and spend and then blame the american people for not paying their, quote, fair share game, must end and it can end today. passing the balanced budget amendment will help bring this country back to economic prosperity and end this game. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i recognize the gentleman from illinois for unanimous consent

statement. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter of national organizations opposing the balanced budget amendment. mr. jackson: they include the children welfare league of america, the children's defense fund, the children's dental health project, the disability rights education and defense fund, division of early childhood of the council for exceptional children, the easter seals, every child matters education fund, families u.s.a., the form for youth investment, the foster family base treatment association, horizons for homeless children, the national association for adults with special learning needs, the national association for education of young children, the national association of elementary school principals, the national association of private special education centers, the national association of school psychologists, the national association of secondary school principals, the national black child development institute,

the national partnership for women and families, the national school boards association, school association of america, youth build u.s.a., the ywca, the aids alliance for children, youth and family, the alliance for educational excellence, the association of education service agencies. i ask unanimous consent, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? mr. nadler: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield the gentleman from illinois four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for four minutes. mr. jackson: i thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i like my good friend from virginia to engage me in a dialogue on a series of questions. the most important question to be raised with respect to the b.b.a. at least for me, and i believe most americans, is how does the balanced budget amendment narrow certain gaps that are obvious in our society? the first gap, mr. chairman, is

the social gap between racial minorities and the majority population. how does the balanced budget amendment narrow that gap? mr. goodlatte: the balanced budget amendment is fair to all because all it simply says is that for all time the people of this country want their government to live within their means, not just right now, but in the future as well. right now we're not anywhere near living within our means. $1.3 trillion deficit each of the last three years. mr. jackson: respectfully, mr. chairman, reclaiming my time. it does not reduce the gap between racial minorities and the majority population. my next question -- there's a gender gap in our society. women earned 76 cents to the dollar of what men earn in our society. how does the balanced budget amendment close the gap between what women earn in our society and what men earn in our society? mr. goodlatte: if you don't balance the budget and you

continue to pile up enormous debt, women, children, minorities, all will suffer in the future because our economy will shrink just like greece's economy is shrinking right now because they can't meet their obligations. and to answer the gentleman's question, i think it's best to turn to the people themselves. mr. jackson: respectfully, mr. chairman, reclaiming my time. the balanced budget amendment doesn't close the gap for women who earn 76 cents to the dollar of what men make because only the federal government in the 50 states can close the gap between what women earn in our society and what men earn in our society. how does the balanced budget amendment close the economic gap between the rich and the poor in our society? i'd be happy to yield to my friend from virginia. mr. goodlatte: sure. i say that the rich pay far, far more than other people too and they should, but this balanced budget amendment doesn't make any distinction between how you balance it, whether it's by increasing revenues, whether it's by

economic growth or whether it's by tax increases. mr. jackson: reclaiming my time. the failure of the balanced budget amendment not making any distinction between the rich and the poor is part of the fall is i and the problem with the balanced budget amendment -- fallacy and the problem with the balanced budget amendment. we are here as representatives of the people to close profound gaps that exist between our constituents and a society. we're supposed to be one america. we're supposed to be all-american. we are supposed to be one people eplur bus uniimgoing somewhere. but what i'm hearing from the gentleman is the gaps will not close. goode -- >> will the gentleman yield? mr. jackson: i'll yield. thank you, mr. majority, controlling the time. infrastructure gap, upgrades to roads and communities that have been left behind, bridges, ports, levees and sewer systems, how does a balanced

budget amendment propose to close the infrastructure gaps that exist in our society where as the states themselves failed to do so? mr. goodlatte: if you don't have the resources because you spent it on other things you won't have the infrastructure. mr. jackson: reclaiming my time. i must assume there is no goal of the balanced budget amendment to close the -- mr. goodlatte: will the gentleman yield? mr. jackson: yes. mr. goodlatte: a growing economy results from living within your means and then using those -- mr. jackson: reclaiming my time. it is obvious that the balanced budget amendment does not narrow the economic, social, gender and generational gap and infrastructural gaps in our country. mr. speaker, vote down the b.b.a. give the american people a reason to believe that the federal government can close the gaps that exist within our society. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. jackson: i'd be happy to yield back the balance. thank you, madam chair.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, i yield myself a minute to say to the gentleman that the balanced budget amendment also will not deliver a pennant to the chicago cubs. let me also say this, let me also say this, in talking about those groups that the gentleman is rightly concerned about how they will do in the future, cnn asked them what they thought a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution and 75% of women said they favored a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. 72% of nonwhite voters said they favored a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. 79% of our senior citizens said they favored a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. 79% of those who earn less than $50,000 a year said they favor a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution. and the same is true whether you look at urban areas, suburban areas, rural areas or any geographic region of our country. they support a balanced budget amendment. i'd be happy to yield.

mr. jackson: what would a balanced budget amendment do for the chicago white sox? i am a south cider. mr. goodlatte: i am a boston fan. we have a ways to go. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. . the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: since the gentleman has admitted to the balanced budget amendment would not deliver the pep nant to the white sox or red sox or the cubs or i suppose the yankees, there is no argument for the balanced budget amendment. i reserve at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, it's now my pleasure to yield two wints to the distinguished gentleman from illinois, who is the chief deputy whip and member of the ways and means committee, mr. roskam. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time -- two minutes. the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. roskam: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. there is a level of anxiety that we are sensing back at home as people are looking at washington, d.c., for solutions and there is various tails --

tales going on right now in terms of what the joint select committee will be able to produce. the fact of the matter is we don't know what the yield is going to be of that negotiation. that's still ongoing. and we'll be dealing with that next week. but we know what we can do right now, madam speaker. we can create a buoyancy and a sense of clarity and a sense of cohesiveness to seize upon a bipartisan moment. a moment that the country came close to in 1995, it came within a whisker of passing the balanced budget amendment and sending it out to the states. over 70 house democrats in 1995, including several of the current leaders, voted in favor of that amendment, and now here we are and we have that opportunity to do the same thing, although to do it successfully. this is not about donkeys and elephants. this is ultimately about us coming together as a congress in a thoughtful way that says one

thing to the united states and that is, we can govern wisely, we can govern forthrightly, we can live within our means, and we can do what the overwhelming majority, madam speaker, of the american public wants us to do, and that is to balance our budget. i urge both sides of the aisle, and to come down here in a short period of time and vote aye. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i reserve at this point. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. latta, a member of the house energy and commerce committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. latta: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman from virginia for yielding. i had the privilege for six years of serving the county commissioner of ohio and 11 years to serve in the general assembly.

during that time we saw good times and we saw bad times in the economy. but the bad times our constitution told us and the state of ohio that we had to balance our books to make sure that we didn't overspend. that's what this house to do -- has to do and this country has to do. for over 50 years and only in balance six times during that period of time? that's horrendous. it's kind of interesting because i was at a town hall talking one day and one of my farmers came up and asked this question, he said i don't understand what the problem is in washington. what's the president want to spend? i told him. about $3.8 trillion. he said how much have you got? i told him how much what we thought the revenue was going to be for the year. he said it's simple. all you got to do is subtract your revenues from what you want to spend and that's all he get to spend is just that revenue. you don't spend over the top of it. people back home understand it because people back home sit around their kitchen tables and dining room tables and they get their pencils and papers out and

figure out how much they can spend. it's not complicated. but we've got to start thinking about this because we are going to -- in debt now $15 trillion. when i have to look at my kids' faces and kids down the street and go to schools and talk to these young children, who they are going to ask me in 10, 15 years what did you do to us not for us? and it's time that this congress act and pass this balanced budget amendment. we have been talking about it for years. we have that opportunity today. i thank the gentleman for bringing it forth. and i can't tell you i wish i could vote for it more than once today. we must pass this today. i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: madam speaker, on that i yield four minutes to the distinguished whip, the gentleman from maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for four minutes.

mr. hoyer: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman from new york for yielding. i spoke yesterday on this issue. my good friend, mr. goodlatte, and i have talked a number of times about this. in 1995 as i said yesterday i voted for an amendment very similar to this, almost exactly alike. and i had a confidence at that point in time that in an emergency 3/5 of us would come together and vote to do that which the country needed to keep it stable and safe. regrettably over the 16 years i have lost that confidence. i have lost that confidence this year. where, frankly, on the majority side of the aisle we would not have passed a c.r. to keep the government opened once. we wouldn't have passed it a second time. and very frankly had we had to

rely on the votes solely of the majority side, as we have in the past on my side, we would not -- we would have defaulted on our debt. that is not a good context in which to adopt an amendment that puts the country at risk if 3/5 are not available. to act in an emergency. as a result i will not vote for this. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. we are engaged at this very day in an effort to try to come to agreement on how we balance the budget. and very frankly we only need 51%. and 51% is not there. but we have balanced the budget and we balanced it without an amendment. we balanced it in 1998, 1999,

2000, 2001. my republican colleagues rightfully say, well, we offered those budgets. yes, they did. but i will tell you i have no doubt, not a single doubt, that if the surpluses that were created by those budgets had been available in 1998 and bill clinton had not said, save social security first, that what we would have done is cut revenues deeply and had deficits during those four years. you may disagree. but i have no doubt based upon the philosophy that i have heard since 1981 from my republican friends that that would have been the case. i said yesterday that what we need is not a balanced budget amendment, what we need is a balanced budget. how do we get to a balanced budget?

i don't know his name and i apologize for that, but my friend who was the county commissioner, mr. latta, mr. latta pointed out he was the county commissioner. now, i bet as county commissioner he probably had to pay for what he bought. and he gave the analogy if you got x coming in and you got -- that's what you spend. not x plus y. the fact of the matter is, his party has spent x plus y, plus z, plus a, plus b, plus c. and has run a deficit for every single year they had the presidency during the last 30 years i have been in the congress. without fail. now, what happened to bring us a balanced budget? first of all we had two parties responsible. i don't think we could have done it with just one party, my party

or your party. we had two parties responsible. and we constrained one another. and then we had an extraordinary growth in our economy. that's what brought us a balanced budget. but we also adopted in 1990, again in 1993, and in 1997, and i tell my good friend the sponsor of this, sometimes he voted for pay-go, and sometimes he did not. and your party abandoned the principle of paying for what you bought in 2001. may i have one additional minute? mr. nadler: the gentleman yielded an additional minute. mr. hoyer: of abandoning that pay-go responsibility you could cut revenues very deeply and not pay for it. not cut spending. it takes no courage, i suggest to my friends, to cut taxes. none whatsoever. everybody's happy. paying for bills is a lot tougher. requires a lot more courage.

a lot more responsibility. but you jettisoned statutory pay-go in 2000 and you went on a spending binge. not only did you blow a hole in the deficit, but you also blew a hole in the economy. and we saw the worst job creation of any administration since herber hoover. -- herbert hoover, because the economy rightfully was not confident that we would manage our finances correctly. what we need, ladies and gentlemen, in this house is a balanced budget. not a balanced budget amendment. let us summon the courage, the will, and the ability to work together immediately in this committee, this select committee on deficit reduction, but let us do it day after day after day. and when the issues come before you, have the courage to either vote against spending or vote

for the revenues to pay for the cars you wanted to buy. i thank the gentlelady for the time. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would ask members to avoid references in the second person. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, i yield myself a minute to respond to the distinguished minority whip and to point out this chart. the gentleman is quite right when he talks about profligacy when there has been republican congresses, although i would point out to the gentleman that when we were in the majority and we had president bill clinton and we had those four balanced budgets, he voted for one but not three others of them, but we did not cut taxes then. taxes were cut, taxes were cut after the attack on this country, september 11, 2001, to stimulate the economy. now, we got roundly criticized

for the deficits that ran up during that time. and this chart shows that in 2004 -- mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield? mr. goodlatte: in 2004 we had a $400 billion deficit. it was the highest deficit in american history, and it was part of the reason why we lost our majority later on. and in 2007, as the deficit stepped down each of the interceding years, in 2007 the gentleman became the majority leader and the the gentlewoman from california became the speaker of the house, and look what happened to our deficits. ever since the congress writes budgets, the congress doesn't balance budgets. both parties are to blame. in the last 50 years six balanced budgets in 50 years. 37 of those years democrats. they only balanced it twice. this is a bipartisan balanced budget amendment that the gentleman voted for once before. he should join us today and set the future on a different track.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hoyer: the gentleman i tell you has no time to yield. mr. goodlatte: i don't. i have all these people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i yield 30 seconds to the distinguished whip. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. hoyer: and he says about voting for butts. i didn't agree with some of the priorities in our budgets. that's accurate. and he's correct. we didn't cut taxes. but he's incorrect as to when you cut taxes. you cut taxes in april. months before 9/11. and you gave away a lot of money and you didn't pay for it. you didn't cut spending in order to pay for it. in your budgets that you offered. furthermore, what the gentleman doesn't point out is in 1993, to a person, you voted against a program which was designed to pay our bills. to a person. and you said it would destroy the economy.

we had the best economy and the largest budget surpluses we have had the administration is the only administration in your lifetime that ended in -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. . mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this point i am delighted to yield two minutes to mr. barton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. barton: i'd ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. barton: and i thank the gentlelady from alabama for her chairmanship of this historic debate and i thank the gentleman from virginia for his leadership and his willingness to yield me time. madam speaker, in 1985, in january, i held up my right hand, held my 2-year-old daughter in my left hand standing right out here in front of the podium, took the oath to be the congressman of the sixth congressional district of texas.

as soon as i was sworn in i signed my first bill and put it right over there in the hopper, the tax limitation balanced budget amendment. the deficit, the total federal debt that year was around -- i mean, the total public debt was less than $5 trillion. in january of 1995, i took the oath of office and then led the debate on the contract with america balanced budget amendment. we actually had two votes that day. one on the tax limitation balanced budget amendment which got about 260-something votes, and then we came back and voted on a balanced budget amendment without the tax limitation provision and it passed and went to the senate. the public debt that day was a little under $8 trillion.

well, today, the public debt is $15 trillion. $10 trillion than in january of 1985 and $8 trillion or $7 trillion more than in january of 1995. how many years do we have to stand here and bemoan the fact that we need more courage or more this or more that and then pile up more public debt? the annual deficit this year, the deficit in one year is more than the total federal budget was in 1985. the total budget. now, i want to thank mr. goodlatte for bringing this bill forward. i want to thank the republican leadership for putting it on the floor. we owe $15 trillion, madam speaker, and we're going to borrow another $1.5 trillion. let's stop the madness. let's vote for this amendment

and send it to the senate. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: madam speaker, i yield -- i'm sorry -- i yield -- i ask that the gentleman be granted time for unanimous consent statement. be recognized for unanimous consent statement. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: yes, thank you, madam speaker. i have a unanimous consent request to submit the following two documents into the record. one is from the international association of firefighters, the other from the aarp, both of which express their opposition to this ill-founded measure before us, house resolution 2. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i now yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is

recognized for 30 seconds. mr. markey: we do not need a constitutional amendment. we need a supercommittee congressional commitment now. to the republicans, do it now. call president obama now. tell him tax breaks for the billionaires on the table. tell them defense spending, on the table. tell him tax breaks for oil companies, on the table. the president says he'll put the social programs on the table. you don't have to go back 200 years to amend the constitution. you just have to next week, next wednesday say we want to do it now. we who are here will do it now. we will balance the budget by putting all of our programs on the table. do it now. do it now, republicans. don't pretend and hide behind a constitutional amendment when you can do it now. you can be the founding fathers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: noting that the republicans on the

supercommittee have put a proposal on the table and democrats have not, i now yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from illinois, mr. manzullo, a member of the financial services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. man sdemruleo: madam speaker, there are over -- mr. manzullo: madam speaker, there are over 10,000 federal programs and counting. no one really quite knows how many there are. i do most of my work in congress on manufacturing. and for 12 years i've been working on a chart to identity fight every agency, every bureau that is involved somehow in manufacturing. and it continues to grow and grow and grow. my object was to -- objective was to find a way with a common portal via the internet to see. it's not possible. that's the problem with this

government. a person says i have a program for this and for that. you know what, it's time to start eliminating programs around here. it's time to just keep those programs that are absolutely necessary, and the best way to do that is to have the fiscal restraint imposed by a balanced budget amendment. you can't go to the back room and cover this program and that program. we need to come to the realization that washington doesn't have the answer for everything. and the best way to cut back on these 10,000 programs is to have the discipline of a balanced budget amendment so that the members of the house and the members of the senate can realize, you really can't spend more than what you take in. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, how much time remains on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia has four minutes remaining, and the gentleman from new york has -- 3/4. mr. goodlatte: it's my pleasure to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. womb ack, who is a -- mr. womack, who is a member of the appropriations committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. womack: madam speaker, it's payday, they are going to get a check from their employer if they are lucky enough to have a job. before cashing that check, they know exactly where it's going. these people have likely already come to the realization that there are a lot more needs, a lot more things they'd like to have or do but there's just so much money. i find it incredible that my friends on the other side of the aisle believe this federal government should not have to go through the same process of discerning between what they want and what they need and what they can afford, like the

rest of america. in the 10-plus months i've been here, i consider this vote the most important vote i will have cast because it's the vote that has the most impact on the future of my grandson. it is sad that congress does not have the discipline to live within its means, and i strongly believe the only way to constrain an undisciplined congress is to enshrine its obligation in the constitution. an overwhelming majority of americans believe that the balanced budget amendment, as proposed today, is the right way forward for america. i thank my friend, mr. goodlatte, for his leadership on the issue, and i urge its passage, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i'll research. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney, who is a a member of the house

financial services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. mulvaney: the debate is it isn't 1985. i wish it were. imagine if we could accomplish this 15 years ago. we have only passed a budget four times in the last 50 years. that doesn't pass the laugh test. i heard from the honorable minority leader that this was not the right time to pass this amendment because somehow this body was too partisan, too partisan to pass a bill to pass an amendment to the constitution that will take partisanship out of the equation and force us to balance a budget. these are all extraordinarily weak argument, madam speaker, and they are weak because they do not go to the heart of the matter of why you'd be against this amendment. the only reason to be against this amendment, the only true argument to be against this

amendment is you want to spend money we don't have. and there are people in this chamber who believe that is the way they keep their jobs. that if we continue to run up debt, if we continue to spend money we don't have is somehow back in their district it will encourage their voters to send them back to this chamber. madam chair woman, i believe there are more important things than our jobs. there are more important things than simply remaining a member of congress. more so than any amendment, any bill that we will take up this year, this amendment is the opportunity that we have to send to the -- send the message to people back home that we are willing to do what is right, that we're willing to stand up for them and to give them the opportunity to change the constitution of the united states in a way that they see fit. thank you, madam chair woman. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, we have one speaker remaining so we'll reserve as well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york.

mr. nadler: will the gentleman be the only closer? then i'll yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: madam speaker, since 1995 when the amendment was last on the floor, we proved we could balance the budget without a balanced budget amendment. but the balanced budget amendment is not the highest goal. the highest goal is prosperity, a full employment economy, and that requires a balanced budget over the business cycle. it requires that in good times we balance the budget and pay down the -- we have a surplus and pay down the deficit. but that in recession you should have a deficit to spur the economy and spend money to spur the economy and get out of the recession. to try to balance the budget by cutting spending during a recession is to increase unemployment, it's to guarantee that every recession becomes a depression. just look at what's happening in germany which is in pretty good shape until they elected a government that enacted austerity, tried to balance a budget, their economy is tanking. the same thing in great britain. the second point i want to make

is that when we talk about balanced budgets in the states, they have a separate budget for operating expenses and capital budgets. here this balanced budget amendment would say we should never borrow money for everything. the federal government should never borrow anything. that's insanity economically. that means we have no money for our bridges, roads, etc. third, this amendment would say if we couldn't reach agreement, if we couldn't pass a balanced budget, the courts would have to decide which taxes to raise taxes and which programs to cut. we should not be giving the courts such power to make such decisions. finally, social security, medicare, these are not debts. they're obligations to the federal government. a balanced budget amendment would put them on the -- would put them at risk. we would have to cut back social security, cut medicare, cut all these things if we

passed the balanced budget amendment. if we were unwilling, as our colleagues on the other side are, to raise taxes on the rich. and the fact taxes on the rich are much less than they've ever been which is the basic causes of the deficits that we're running now. the balanced budget amendment would not balance the budget. we would still have the stalemate between republicans who want no taxes on the rich and want draconian cuts on lower and middle-income programs and those on our side of the aisle who disagree with that. if you can't reach agreement on those things now in the supercommittee, what makes you think you would reach agreement just because you had a requirement on the books that said you should? it would end up in court. the balanced budget amendment is simply a stop to say we are doing something about a balanced budget when we are unwilling to make the decisions to balance a budget. we showed during the clinton administration those decisions could be made. and if we really want to balance the budget we have to

undo most of the tax cuts. we should pal the bument, not pass an amendment. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. gooled goode madam speaker, the gentleman from -- mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, the gentleman from new york and i agree on one thing, prosperity is the goal. this is not the way to prosperity. 50 years with six balanced budgets has led to a $15 trillion debt that we have right now. that's not prosperity. the largest debtor nation on earth is not prosperity. the $50,000 per american citizen in debt is not prosperity. but the $60 trillion in future obligations that we have yielding this result is definitely not prosperity for our children and grandchildren. that is why we need the discipline that a balanced budget amendment to the constitution provides. that is why this is a bipartisan vote. that is why dozens of democrats will join us today in

enshrining in our constitution something that will require that future congresses balance a budget. . i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would like to ask members to not pass between the chair and the member being recognized. question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to house joint resolution 2 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the negative, the rules are suspended -- the rules are not suspended -- mr. goodlatte: on that i request

for a recorded vote. . the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. goodlatte: the gentleman asks for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, this is a 15-minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules. will be followed by a five-minute vote on adoption of house resolution 470. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 2 --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 261. the nays --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 261. the nays, 165. 2/3 of those not responding in the affirmative, the rules are not suspended and the joint resolution is not passed. the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of house resolution 470 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 93, 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: the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]