Balanced Budget Amendment

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, here we are, 4 legislative days after passing a $1.3 trillion omnibus bill that is going to blow the deficit through the roof. And what are we going to do today? Oh, don't worry. We are going to fix it all. We are going to vote for the balanced budget amendment. That is right. This is going to tie our hands. This balanced budget amendment will cure everything that ails Congress. It is going to balance the budget. It is going to make us balance the budget.

Mr. Speaker, there is a dictionary over here in the House of Representatives, 30 feet from me. I suggest we go in there and rewrite the definition of ``audacity,'' because it is that quality of Congress that leads them to believe that 4 legislative days after they blow the budget they can pass a balanced budget amendment and think that will convince America that they are serious about balancing the budget. That is the definition of audacity.

Look, this is an unserious vote. We know this balanced budget amendment is going nowhere in the Senate. But this is a very serious topic. This is the Constitution we are talking about amending. This is the document we swore an oath to uphold, support, defend. Our Founding Fathers died for it.

What is wrong with this balanced budget amendment? Well, first of all, let me tell you, it has got a loophole you could drive a truck through. Section 1, the very first part of this balanced budget amendment, says, if three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress pass a budget that is unbalanced, that is fine, but you have got to get three-fifths vote. Okay. Higher threshold. That will cause us to balance the budget. Three-fifths is hard to get, isn't it?

How many? What is three-fifths? Sixty percent. How many Members of Congress voted for that omnibus bill 4 legislative days ago? 60.5 percent in the House. How many in the Senate? More than that.

This balanced budget amendment wouldn't have stopped the omnibus bill. There is something worse in this balanced budget amendment. Any year that we are at war, it does not apply. Let's think about that.

The first day of Congress, we elect the Speaker. We are going to elect a new one this time. We elect the Speaker. We adopt the rules. The third order of business will be to declare war so we don't have to follow the balanced budget amendment. That is a loophole right there, but it is a dangerous one.

Some people say: Well, at least we will start declaring wars. We haven't declared a war since World War II. Maybe it will get Congress to do its job, its constitutional duty.

Well, I don't think so. We have been at war in Afghanistan for 17 years, and this article in the balanced budget amendment says: Well, you don't have to be at war as long as there is a conflict with our national security at stake. Oh, you can forget the balanced budget amendment.

What does that mean? For the last 17 years, this balanced budget amendment wouldn't apply to the war in Afghanistan or Iraq, where we have racked up trillions of dollars of debt. The balanced budget amendment would do nothing to stop that.

Look, I am not against the concept of an amendment to the Constitution that limits the growth of government. This government is so much bigger than it was when our Founders started this country, and for many years thereafter, but that is not what this balanced budget amendment does. It is not carefully crafted.

The thought that our Founders put into the Constitution has not been put into this document. It has not even been debated in a committee. Yet, today, we are going to vote on it. How ridiculous is that?

So here is what I think we need to do. Instead of having a balanced budget amendment that encourages you to go to war, that is toothless, that encourages you to raise taxes instead of cut spending, we need a balanced budget amendment that somehow limits the growth of government. Frankly, what we need are people here that are serious about balancing the budget, not another document, not an unserious proposal.

So I would just say this. I know this is a popular concept to have a balanced budget amendment. I am not going to urge a ``yes'' vote or a ``no'' vote or a ``present'' vote. I am going to vote ``no'' because it is an unserious approach to a serious topic, and it should be called ``the CYA,'' not ``the BBA,'' but I just want my colleagues to think deeply and long about this amendment.

Please read it. Please read it before you vote on it. It is right here. It is only three pages. Please read it. Think deeply before you cast your vote to alter this sacred document.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source