Progressive Caucus Hour: The Balanced Budget Amendment

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to allow members of the Progressive Caucus to continue this discussion and as well to continue to educate the American public.

It is worth noting that part of the discussion that occurred on the floor of the House is that we have come to this point, if I might say, through a peculiar process. Some might call it hostage-taking, but certainly it is a process that has skewed, if you will, the regular order of this Congress.

This little book, the Constitution of the United States, that can fit into a document of this size, even though it is found in law books and many major large-sized books in the Library of Congress, hopefully convinces the American people of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. It is noteworthy that they did not include a balanced budget amendment in the first group of amendments called the Bill of Rights. And even as they proceeded, they took the challenge of speaking to any number of issues, the freeing of the slaves in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, giving the right to vote finally in the 15th Amendment, suggesting that there should be no obstacles to voting. They went on to the 24th Amendment to indicate that there should be no poll tax, the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote. But never did they feel the necessity to talk about a balanced budget amendment.

The reason, I believe, that they cast their lot on the responsible thinking of Members of Congress is because that is what we are supposed to do. We are supposed to be responsible Members of the United States Congress with no intervening body, no layered approach, no handcuffing of our deliberation. And that's what a balanced budget amendment is all about.

You've just listened to a portion of our debate. We will go on into tomorrow, mind you, taking up 5 hours of time that could be dedicated to coming together around job creation.

The underlying premise of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is that two-thirds of this body, two-thirds of the other body, and three-quarters of the States must consent to a balanced budget amendment. Thank goodness that our Founding Fathers made amending the Constitution so difficult. And that is because they wanted us to be thoughtful. So when we think of the amendments that are in this book, this little book that starts off with ``We, the people,'' a part of the Declaration of Independence, and then the beginning part of the Constitution says that we have come together ``to form a more perfect union,'' they've made it that challenging so that we could be thoughtful in our moving amendments.

Maybe for those of us who are in certain types of church families, whether it be Baptist or the underlying overriding general Protestant structure, we know that there are pastors, ministers, reverends, board of trustees, a board, or maybe a deacon board, there is some sort of policy board, and then there is a congregation. The reason why I mentioned the faith community is because we can get very sensitive about how our places of worship are run, how the business part of it is run. And you would wonder how many congregations would welcome the overlay of some outside entity--albeit formed by members--that was over the pastor, that was over the board of trustees, that was over the congregation. That's what we have done and forced ourselves to do with the intervening supercommittee that was put together by the concept of needing to raise the debt ceiling and then adding into it another hot pepper pot, and that is, of course, having to be forced to pass a balanced budget amendment.

I want to refer my colleagues again to a headline in a local paper, Sheila Jackson Lee can't slow down the Republican balanced-budget amendment freight train. It's not necessarily because it was my name, but that's just what we have experienced, a freight train.

I have no doubt that there will be a strong vote tomorrow. I am hoping that the debate will generate enough thought to cause many of my colleagues to reflect on whether or not we could, in the regular order, do some of the suggestions that have been made. Taxation of investment transactions, where many who are well vested and who have experienced the bounty of this land would be willing to contribute and to understand how we should move forward. The expiration of the Bush tax cuts, another revenue-generator that would, I believe, increase the opportunities for reducing the debt. Getting rid of the mighty, if you will, bungled opportunity to help seniors, becoming a gigantic handout budgetary fiasco. Medicare part D--ask every senior when you visit them at their senior centers, are they begging for the closing of the doughnut hole? But more importantly, are they trying to get relief from Medicare part D? Give them relief, close the doughnut hole, and you will find a huge amount of money going into the Treasury.

Going back to the Affordable Care Act and implementing the public option and allowing the United States to negotiate the cost of medications, prescription drugs under Medicare--just watch the debt go down, down, down. So I want to recite, as I did on the floor of the House, the words of Chairman Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, who indicated to the Committee on Financial Services, We really don't want to just cut, cut, cut. You need to be a little bit cautious about sharp cuts in the very near term because of the potential impact on the recovery. That doesn't at all preclude--in fact, I believe it's entirely consistent with--a longer-term program that will bring our budget into a sustainable position.

Nowhere did he say, Well, why don't you just do a balanced budget amendment with no thinking and not being able to deal with emergencies beyond another vote by the Congress, sometimes a majority, sometimes even longer.

Mr. Speaker, a balanced budget amendment was wrong when our Founding Fathers began to write the Constitution. It was wrong as the Founding Fathers wrote amendment after amendment. It was wrong to think about it in World War II, to think about it in the 1929 financial collapse, to think about it in the conflicts of the 1950s, the Vietnam war or wars thereafter, such as the Persian Gulf, the Iraq war, and, of course, the Afghan war, Kosovo, Bosnia, Albania, Libya, and places where we've been called to act on behalf of the American people in defending our honor and democracy and protecting the vulnerable around the world. It is wrong, wrong, wrong.

What the American people who voted for Members of the United States Congress are asking us to do is what the Progressive Caucus is doing: It is finding a way, first of all, to submit a reasoned budget that has seen a responsible approach to addressing the needs of revenue-raising and belt-tightening. What it is also asking is, as the Progressive Caucus is doing, drafting a major omnibus jobs bill that will incorporate a wide range of initiatives, many not costly initiatives, that will bring about jobs in America not only for those languishing 2 and 3 years unemployed but for our wonderful college graduates and others that are coming out of the institutions of higher learning.

But as Dr. Jeffrey Sachs said, We have even more challenges because, although we all point to college graduates and going to institutions of higher learning, maybe I should wake up America and let you know that we have some of the lowest numbers of college graduation rates probably in the history of America: white males at 34 percent, African Americans somewhere under 20, and Hispanics 11 percent.

So the balanced budget amendment is not going to invest in the human resources of America. It's not going to answer the question in our competitive reach as we compete around the world. It's not going to respond to the numbers of Ph.D.s that India is now producing, probably in years to come more so than people in the United States, or the number of masters and Ph.D.s in China.

Our reach in competition is way beyond our borders. But everyone knows that America's marketability is our genius in invention and manufacturing, our genius as it relates to prescription drugs, our genius in medical science and medicine, our genius in Silicon Valley and the little Silicon Valleys that are springing up around America.

Our genius, for example, in the MD Anderson Cancer Center located in Houston, Texas, the fourth largest city in the Nation, magnificent research occurring in that institution, seeking a viable 21st-century, 22nd-century cure for this devastating disease, but also branching out for creative thinking in the next generation of research. That is the genius of America. We are not broke, and we're certainly not broke in our genius.

Let us be reminded as we debate the balanced budget amendment that our corporations are flush with cash. Our banks are flush with cash, and countries around the world are eager to have us hold their money in the framework of loans that are being made to us. If they wish to loan to anyone, they are eager to loan to the United States. Why? Because they believe their cash is safe.

So it is important that we are thoughtful in the idea of a balanced budget amendment and why now. Why are we doing a balanced budget amendment in the course of the need to do, as Dr. Sachs has said, long-term, systematic changes in how we do business in the United States of America?

So just take a fact sheet on the question of the balanced budget amendment. It came about because we went to the brink of raising the debt ceiling, something that had been done many times since President Eisenhower, going forward to Presidents thereafter, many times under Bush I, the 41st President of the United States; many times under the 42nd President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton; many times under the 43rd President of the United States.

And lo and behold, an African American President ascends to the Presidency, voted on by the American people, and the debt ceiling becomes a crisis in the making. And, frankly, the pundits, economists around the world indicated it was not the question of raising the debt ceiling. It was the debacle shown around the world that the Members of Congress were not allowed to get their business in order. They were not allowed to debate this in a reasoned manner. They were strung and strangled by voices that are driven by outside party politics, in this instance the Tea Party and those who adhere to pledges governed by Mr. Norquist.

So it is important that a constitutional debate be separated from the entrenched political views that would disallow a thoughtful discussion. We could have raised the debt ceiling with a thoughtful discussion; but it came with not strings but ladened with heavy steel, bricks tied to our arms and body as we walked slowly and dragged down.

So we have a supercommittee. With great respect for those working, I have the greatest respect for our colleagues and wish them well. We have the requirement of a balanced budget amendment, a constitutional discussion dragged down by the requirement that you're not going to get the debt ceiling raised. You're not going to be able to pay the bills for our seniors and our soldiers on the battlefield if you didn't hang with all of this weight to carry forth an instruction that really is not done thoughtfully.

So here's what we get with the balanced budget amendment. We risk default by the United States by requiring a supermajority to raise the debt limit. It destroys 15 million jobs and doubles unemployment to 18 percent. If enacted in fiscal year 2012, nonpartisan economists with Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC, estimate that enactment of a balanced budget amendment would eliminate 15 million jobs, double the unemployment rate to 18 percent, and cause the economy to shrink by 17 percent.

Remember what I said, dragged down by steel anvils tied to our legs and arms, our ankles, around our necks. This is what we will be doing tomorrow. This is what the vote will entail tomorrow.

It harms seniors by cutting Medicare and Social Security and veterans by reducing their benefits, even though Social Security is solvent until 2035, requiring a thoughtful decision of how we go forward. And even though there are ways to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse from Medicare without cutting providers, we want to go with a balanced budget amendment which could result in Medicare being cut by about $750 billion, Social Security $1.2 trillion, and veterans benefits $85 million through 2021.

How many of us joined our neighbors in celebrating Veterans Day last Friday? I did. We went to the Veterans hospital and shook the hands of bedridden veterans and promised them, by giving them cards of cheer, that we would not in any way cut their benefits. These cuts will result in draconian cuts, worse than the Ryan GOP budget. It opens the doors for courts to intervene--and the gentleman from Illinois may want to comment on this--in Federal budget decisions by placing the balanced budget amendment into the Constitution. It will generate enormous--in fact, there will be a line to the courthouse on constitutional challenges on cutting Pell Grants and cutting food stamps and cutting housing and cutting veterans benefits, as I said.

And then, of course, more than 270 organizations representing people that are the most vulnerable have begged us to unshackle the steel anvils from our legs and arms and do the people's business.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I wanted to ask the gentlelady a question because I think she touched upon a thoughtful comment in her remarks.

I can imagine since every Member of Congress and every candidate for Congress is running for office and they run to uphold the Constitution of the United States, they swear to uphold the Constitution and its various provisions within the context of the debate that we have here on the floor of the Congress. In my district, I run on a campaign to try and provide better housing for my constituents. I run a campaign trying to provide health care for the health care-less, those who don't have health care. I run trying to say that the Federal Government has an obligation to address issues of unemployment and provide jobs. And when the private sector won't invest its money in and on the south side of Chicago, that it should do more. I run my campaigns arguing that people should get involved in the political process because if they vote for me, I can provide them some hope. I will come to the floor of the Congress and have their grievances redressed by the Government of the United States.

Under the balanced budget amendment as proposed by the gentleman from Virginia, it seems to me that anyone running for Congress in the future isn't going to be running making promises or commitments to do anything about the social ills or the gaps that exist within our society. They will be running for office saying, What I guarantee is you cannot have better housing, that you cannot concern yourself about the Federal Government's role in health care, or that the Federal Government should have no role in addressing issues of unemployment. Let the private sector work its way to the south side of Chicago or to Houston, Texas.

The gentlelady's argument seems to suggest that the balanced budget amendment itself changes the framework and the structure of America; and instead of candidates running for office making the case for hope and making the case for change and encouraging the promise of America, it's just the opposite.

Would the gentlelady comment on that, please.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. The gentleman is eloquent in his analysis. And as an appropriator, the gentleman knows full well the value of regular order. That is that the voices of not only the appropriators, meaning those on the Appropriations Committee, but other Members are able to, in essence, craft the ultimate appropriations, maybe working with a budget, maybe not, based upon the current needs of the American people.

The balanced budget amendment will stand not as a guard at the door of the United States Congress--the doors are to my left. We come in and out. It will literally be a lock and chain on the door because it will say to those who are running for office, in essence, you are powerless. You will either be as other litigants in the courthouse in the third branch of government seeking refuge for your constituents, or you will make at being a Member of Congress and spend most of your time fighting the balanced budget amendment in the courts.

The gentleman is absolutely correct, and I would add to this that, even though they make a way for disasters and wars, even if it is presumed to be under the jurisdiction of the President's executive powers to even expend any dollars, one would have to come to this body to receive a majority vote by this House and a majority vote by the other House.

That means that all branches of government will be under this lock. The President will not be able to act as a President. The Congress will have disagreement as to whether or not it's a war we support or conflict we support or an emergency we support, and, in essence, to the gentleman's very fine point, and as I indicated, we will be clogging the Federal courts on each iota of disagreement dealing with from vast issues of protecting the homeland to the necessity of defending the principles of democracy around the world. And I know there are some probably listening and they are probably applauding because they are saying, I don't want to help anyone anyhow. But some of that help falls back on the safety and security of the American people.

What is going on in Somalia, the frightening devastation of death that we are not acknowledging, might be a cause for the support of the American Government to help in the survival of those people. We will be in a stranglehold from doing that. The crisis in Syria, which I wanted to just make mention of and to ask Dr. Assad, as the Arab League has asked, and as I continue to ask and as my Syrian American neighbors have asked, to step down, which might warrant the United States joining with people of goodwill to help the Syrian people, we will find ourselves in court for each step of our responsibilities. The oath we take, that will be in conflict with the balanced budget amendment as it is presently written by the gentleman from Virginia.

By the way, if it is not passed as it is, a long-winded process will generate, and I assume that it is the same balanced budget amendment on the other body, but this will be a long, protracted process while we continue to languish and not do the people's bidding. I would rather do the people's bidding than I would want to, again, yield to a process that by its very nature is fractured and does not adhere to the Constitution as relates to having control of the pursestrings, being able to raise armies, being able to provide for the general welfare of the American people.

What are we talking about here? Am I going to have to prosecute a case in the Federal courts on the question of the general welfare of the American people when we will be thwarted here on the floor of the House because of the balanced budget amendment?

I would be happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I'm not so sure that many of the distinguished colleagues appreciate that the distinguished gentlelady from Texas was a jurist before she came to the Congress of the United States. And so we heard from the author of the amendment, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, that a three-fifths requirement would be required by this House, I believe, to raise taxes.

Now, unlike the Senate, which has a staggered election process, every 6 years is usually the tenure of a Senator, here in the House, Members of Congress run every 2 years. Essentially they're elected a year, then they run a year, then they are elected a year, then they run a year. And I'm finding it nearly impossible to imagine that in the event that revenues are at a shortfall in the Congress of the United States that there will ever be a Congress under the three-fifths requirement as spoken of in this amendment that would ever be willing to raise taxes on wealthy Americans in order to help balance the Nation's budget or to pay for programs. The politics of the way in which Congress is elected, that we serve 2 years, that we essentially serve a year, run a year, serve a year, do politics a year, which is a fundamental tenet of our system and a Constitutional requirement for the House, it just seems to me that inherent in the idea that somehow this Congress is going to have enough political courage in an election year, which, by the way, is every year for Members of Congress, that they're going to be willing to raise taxes in order to help provide for necessary needs of the American people.

As a jurist, would the gentlelady please comment on this idea of a three-fifths requirement in order to move revenue through this building.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I want to remind the gentleman, I'm looking at a statement that my office brought to my attention that I was on the floor of the House September 22, 2004. Let me say that I wasn't on the floor of the House. I was in a markup on a proposed balanced budget amendment. And I had
in the markup, Mr. Jackson, an amendment called the ``poor children's amendment.'' In achieving a balanced budget, outlays shall not be reduced in a manner that disproportionately affects outlays for education, nutrition and health programs for poor children. That was called the ``poor children's amendment,'' dated November 22, 2004.

We were dealing with an amendment at that time. It seems like we've done it over and over again. But I want to raise that to say you are very right in your analysis. What that means is that those who would be on the side of saying that we have a crisis with poor children, with nutrition, with the SCHIP program, children's health insurance program which is now merged into our Affordable Care Act, any other programs that deal specifically with the poor--let me just cite this: 2008, 15.45 million impoverished children in the Nation, 20.7 percent of America's youth. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that there are currently 5.6 million Texans living in poverty. We have the most uninsured.

What it means is that Congresswoman Jackson Lee would battle it out in the courts. I would leave the floor of the House. I couldn't get the amount increased, and I would challenge the constitutionality of the balanced budget amendment. That would be part of my remedy because I couldn't raise up a three-fifths in this body, which is a supermajority, in essence, a supermajority to do the constitutional right that we have for taxation.

The House has the pursestrings, and that's a constitutional task. We've now changed that simple majority that has been written by our Founding Fathers who were building a nation and said, when building a nation, we don't want to be reckless with spending, but let us have a majority that will allow us to tax ourselves and build a nation. We're now arguing that it will be three-fifths.

And as we have made it your point, a constitutional amendment, as you know that we've gone to courts on the Ninth Amendment, the right to privacy. We are presently in the throngs of the amendments dealing with due process; and out of that 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments came the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Civil Rights Act of 1964. That generates court action. To your point, we will be in court. But I will say this. We will be in court on defense matters as well.

Let me just indicate a point about defense. In order to spend more than has been appropriated, agencies tasked with defense and national security will need approval from Congress. This increased reliance on emergency appropriations will have detrimental effects on the sound functioning of our defense and national security institutions. The more these institutions are forced to rely on emergency funding, the more unpredictable these budgets will become.

This legislation would allow a military conflict or threat to national security to take the budget out of balance. However, in order to authorize additional funds for military engagement or threats to national security that require action, Congress will need to pass legislation citing a specific amount. So the gentleman who was on the floor is very accurate in what the balanced budget amendment will do is kick us off budget if we have an emergency.

Might I just say, as my voice is coming to somewhat of a raspy end, that in addition to being off budget for this Congress, those of us--I see the good speaker, a dear friend from Texas. Those of us who are familiar with State budgets, we know that there is a capital budget, and we don't have one here in the Federal Government. And so we spend, if people would know, monies out of the Federal Government to ensure the infrastructure of America.

Just a few days ago, Texas had articles talking about our water level. Our water is a lifeline for our ranchers, and something has to be done. I expect the legislature will dig deep to address the diminishing water sources and the water shelf that we have to deal with in places where we have to keep our ranchers going.

By the way, ranchers of Texas, I love you; and I am proud to be from Texas where ranching still goes on. You hold on. We have to deal with it; it is a Federal proposition to deal with water all over America. So all of this would be kicked off budget. And I would hope maybe my Texas colleagues would be in the courts with me when they would be denied the right to secure Federal funding to help Texas that is now suffering from enormous deprivation of water because of the drought that we had and some problems that come about through Mother Nature.

May I pause for a moment and ask the Speaker how much time is remaining.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 28 minutes remaining.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Then let me just add a few more points to my commentary on this.

Let me just say that in my district in Texas, more than 190,000 people live below the poverty line. And I want to take Mr. Jackson's comments--I will say that he took the words out of our collective mouths in the Congressional Progressive Caucus that this issue of poverty is really unspoken, but is in need of raising the ante. And it's the highest rate in 17 years.

The thresholds proposed in H.J. Res. 2 are completely unrealistic. Even during Ronald Reagan's Presidency, before the baby boomers had reached retirement age, swelling the population eligible for Social Security and Medicare when health care costs were lower, Federal spending averaged 22 percent of GDP. We don't have that low number that was offered in the Judiciary Committee, but it is unrealistic as this country grows.

My friends, the country has gotten larger. We can't have the same percentages that we had under President Eisenhower. Only 5 years in the last 50 has the Federal Government posted an annual budget surplus. All of the years the government has been in a deficit. We must contain it and restrain it. We must raise money. We can do that. We've just got to move the various ghosts of tax pledges and other third-party restraints away from the Halls of Congress and move the blocker of doing intelligent work, and that would be a balanced budget amendment.

So I believe it is crucial, as this debate goes forward, that we understand the Constitution and the American people understand that you pass a balanced budget amendment and you give up the vote that you cherish every 2 years, when you vote for a Member of Congress who is allowed to vote for or against, who will stand on the floor of the House and advocate, under the Constitution of the United States, the authority of this House of Representatives to institute taxes through the discourse of debate and the appropriate use of those taxes to raise up the general welfare of the American Government and people.

With that in mind, I would beseech of you, as I close, to be able to truly understand the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States. Allow me to read this into the Record:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I beg of you, my colleagues who will vote tomorrow, have this Constitution in your hand. Posterity can come through the reasonable work. Posterity can come through the thanking of the supercommittee for its work and moving beyond the supercommittee into 2012. Begin to analyze the needs of the American people and vote for revenue and vote for belt-tightening.

Don't take the Constitution and shred it tomorrow, voting for a balanced budget amendment that no Founding Father saw fit to implement, and throwing America's children, veterans, returning soldiers, and seniors into the Federal courthouses of America and depending upon the Federal court system for justice. We can do justice tomorrow. We can join with the Congressional Progressive Caucus long range, but we can do justice tomorrow and reject the balanced budget amendment on behalf of the constitutional rights of the people, and on behalf of the people of the United States of America.

I am happy to yield control of the remaining time to the gentleman from Illinois.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source