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. spear, 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, m cirman, 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. j

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 soci

mr. nadler: mr.er, 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

mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, although the american people are concerned about restoring our economy and creating jobs, today we are returning to irrelevant issues that do nothing to promote economic growth to put americans back to work. we've seen this before. in the 107th congress we passed a bill to reaffirm the phrase "one nation under god" in the pledge of allegiance and reaffirm our national motto. we re-enacted into law word for one making "in god we trust" our national motto just to be sure. now, no one threatened it. no one said it was not the national motto. this resolution today, which has no force of law, simply restates the national motto once again. why have my republican friends returned to an irrelevant agenda? irrelevant because it does nothing. it restates existing law that no one is questioning. why are we debating nonbinding resolutions about the national motto? the

mr. nadler: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: i yield one minute to the gentleman from mississippi, mr. harper. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. harper: in god we trust, for over five decades america has celebrated this phrase as our national motto. this pronouncement is part of or national anthem and engraved in both chambers of congress. but the united states foundation in god far outdates that the country has recognized. our country's first national document the declaration of independence spoke to inalienable rights given to us by our creators. there is collective reliance on god as they drafted the united states constitution. when congress included biblical references and when the constitution was framed at the constitution in philadelphia, franklin reminded the delegates that god governance and if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable the that an empire can rise without his aid. i ask my colleagues to support this and i yield back. the speaker

mr. nadler: the gentleman yieldean 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

mr. nadler: mr.self such time as may conse. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, thgh the american people are concerned about restoring our economy and creating jobs, today we are returning to irrelevant issues that do nothing to promote economic growth to put americans back to work. we've seen this before. in the 107th congress we passed a bill to reaffirm the phrase "one nation under god" in the pledge of allegiance and reaffirm our national motto. we re-enacted into law word for one making "in god we trust" our national motto just to be sure. now, no one threatened it. no one said it was not the national motto. this resolution today, which has no force of law, simply restates the national motto once again. why have my republican friends returned to an irrelevant agenda? irrelevant because it does nothing. it restates existing law that no one is questioning. why are we debating nonbinding resolutions about the national motto? the american people are demandi

mr. nadler, then ms. jackson-lee, then mr. hastings, mr. johnson and ms. maloney. . nadler, let me say i s a beautifully prepared statement. >> with considerable changes. >> i know since you made the changes, i'd like to say without objection that entire statement is going to appear in the statement and we'd welcome your summary. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll oe i'll omit the first part of the statement which basically describes why the bill is a terrible bill. but let me just address the p t part -- the amendment. with respect to guns, the concerns of more urbanized states like new york are different from like more rural states like alaska. within reason there are strong reasons to allow each state to tailor its own gun laws. that has been our general policy for hundreds of years. anyone who talks aut states' rights ought to adhere to that. under this bill that would all change. anyone with a permit to carry a concealed handgun could bring their gun into a state of which they're not a resident regardless of whether or not they would even be allowed to possess a fi

mr. nadler, then ms. jackson-lee, then mr. hastings, mr. johnson and ms. maloney. mr. nadler, let me say i see a beautifully prepared statement. >> with considerable changes. >> i know since you made the changes, i'd like to say without objection that entire statement is going to appear in the statement and we'd welcome your summary. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll oe i'll omit the first part of the statement which basically describes why the bill is a terrible bill. but let me just address the p t part -- the amendment. with respect to guns, the concerns of more urbanized states like new york are different from like more rural states like alaska. within reason there are strong reasons to allow each state to tailor its own gun laws. that has been our general policy for hundreds of years. anyone who talks about states' rights ought to adhere to that. under this bill that would all change. anyone with a permit to carry a concealed handgun could bring their gun into a state of which they're not a resident regardless of whether or not they would even be allowed to possess

mr. nadler, then ms. jackson-lee, then mr. hastings, mr. johnson and ms. maloney. mr. nadler, let me say i see a beautifully prepared statement. >> with considerable changes. >> i know since you made the changes, i'd like to say without objection that entire statement is going to appear in the statement and we'd welcome your summary. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll oe i'll omit the first part of the statement which basically describes why the bill is a terrible bill. but let me just address the p t part -- the amendment. with respect to guns, the concerns of more urbanized states like new york are different from like more rural states like alaska. within reason there are strong reasons to allow each state to tailor its own gun laws. that has been our general policy for hundreds of years. anyone who talks about states' rights ought to adhere to that. under this bill that would all change. anyone with a permit to carry a concealed handgun could bring their gun into a state of which they're not a resident regardless of whether or not they would even be allowed to possess

mr. nadler, the distinguished constitutionalist. the courts could mandate, therefore if congress failed to pass the balanced budget, it could mandate a government shutdown once revenue has been expended, is that correct? mr. nadler: the amendment is silent. all it says is this will happen. this must happen. when this must happen, in our system of government, if it doesn't, or if someone thinks it's not going to, they go to court and ask for a court order to make sure it happens. the court either will -- there are two possibilities and only two. one, the court will say, here's how we make it in order. we raise this tax and lower that expenditure or the court will say, in which case you have unelected judges making those decisions, and this amendment gives them no guidance on how to make the decisions, or the court will say, as the gentleman from virginia just sugg jed the court would do, the court will exercise judicial restraint and say, this is a political question and we decline to make any order in which case this amendment is no

mr. conyers: i yield to jerry nadler for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. nadler: i have to correct what the gentleman from virginia said a moment ago when he said it would not affect social security because social security would be protected by the trust fund. this amendment says outlays can't exceed receipts. that includes social security, which the courts have held is not a debt. therefore, social security would have to be paid out of the same amounts and there would be cap against the outlays to determine whether the budget is imbalance something that is not in case today. and would require deeper cuts. if the -- if this amendment were in effect today, medicare would have to be cut by $750 billion, social security by $1.2 trillion. veteran benefits, 85 billion despite anyone may say on the floor, that's the simple truth of this amendment. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i yield to ms. b

mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, although the american people are concerned about restoring our economy and creating jobs, today we are returning to irrelevant issues that do nothing to promote economic growth to put americans back to work. we've seen this before. in the 107th congress we passed a bill to reaffirm the phrase "one nation under god" in the pledge of allegiance and reaffirm our national motto. we re-enacted into law word for one making "in god we trust" our national motto just to be sure. now, no one threatened it. no one said it was not the national motto. this resolution today, which has no force of law, simply restates the national motto once again. why have my republican friends returned to an irrelevant agenda? irrelevant because it does nothing. it restates existing law that no one is questioning. why are we debating nonbinding resolutions about the national motto? the

mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. madam speaker, i'm sorry. madam speaker i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 822. what the brady campaign correctly calls the packing heat on your street bill. mr. speaker, america's in dire economic straights. millions of people are out -- straits. millions of people are out of work, people are clam bering for congress to pass legislation to grow the economy and help create jobs. so what does the house of representatives do? this august body is considering gun legislation. the disconnect between the republican house majority and the american people is beyond belief. it's no wonder that the congress approval rating is 13%. not only are we wasting our time on this issue, but what the bill does should scare every american. this bill as amended by the judiciary committee would let a person with a concealed carry permit issued by one state take his or her weapon to any other state of which they are not a resident, regardless of the laws of that other state. state laws on both gun possession and concealed carry woul

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

mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. madam speaker, i'm sorry. madam speaker i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 822. what the brady campaign correctly calls the packing heat on your street bill. mr. speaker, america's in dire economic straights. millions of people are out -- straits. millions of people are out of work, people are clam bering for congress to pass legislation to grow the economy and help create jobs. so what does the house of representatives do? this august body is considering gun legislation. the disconnect between the republican house majority and the american people is beyond belief. it's no wonder that the congress approval rating is 13%. not only are we wasting our time on this issue, but what the bill does should scare every american. this bill as amended by the judiciary committee would let a person with a concealed carry permit issued by one state take his or her weapon to any other state of which they are not a resident, regardless of the laws of that other state. state laws on both gun possession and concealed carry woul

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

mr. nadler and mr. scott, it is great to see you again. in 1965, after african-americans and their allies had been half- assed, fired from their jobs, water hose, bludgeoned by police, and sometimes killed, congress finally it receded and decided that "sterner and more leverage measures were needed to combat the insidious and pervasive evil which has been perpetrated in certain parts of our country through unremitting defiance of the constitution." and that is how the voting rights act came about. said the aclu is grateful that we are not dealing with violence. but we're here to say the same evil is upon our country today. the spread of this quiet evil the does violence to our constitutional values needs national attention. we're grateful to you that you have decided to hold this hearing today to build greater awareness and create a sense of urgency about the assault on a constitutionally protected right to vote. we need your intercession. how they go over the same things that the brennan center covered in the league of women voters and th

pd >> we turn now to jerry nadler whose long service on the house judiciary committee makes it important that we recognize him at this point. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i will make a short statement and to questions. it is obvious what is going on. i was a little surprised to hear what of the witness is talking about educating state legislators. they know what is going on. this is an organized effort to disenfranchise millions of voters, minority voters, older voters, young riders, student boulders and for political purposes. -- young voters. student voters for political purposes. someone talked about how poor people wanted to just use the votes to rob the other people. that is straight of the federalist priority of 1800. the jeffersonian democrats did not agree with that then. the whigs did not agree with it eventually. it has taken until now to come back. we have seen this as a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise poor people, because some people think that taxation is theft. and poor people -- if they vote, they will use it to extract money to rich people. and that is improper, so let's restrict them from voting because they did not hav

mr. nadler and/or the number 8 by mr. bishop and i believe the committee members know what they are. and i won't offer any words in support of sail. >> vote occurs on the hastings amendment. those in favor say aye. those against no. clerk will call the roll. mr. sessions, no. ms. fox, no. mr. bishop, no. mr. woodall, no. mr. nugent, no. mr. scott, no. mr. webster, no. ms. slaughter. mr. mcgovern, aye. mr. hastings aye. mr. polis, aye. mr. chairman no. >> and the clerk will report the total. >> three