Proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. 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 like it. I had a confidence at that point in time that, in an emergency, three-fifths 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've lost that confidence this year, where, frankly, on the majority's side of the aisle we would not have passed a CR to keep the government open 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 have defaulted on our debt.

That is not a good context in which to adopt an amendment that puts the country at risk if three-fifths are not available to act in an emergency. As a result, I will not vote for this amendment, and 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 percent, and 51 percent is not there.

But we have balanced the budget, and we balanced it without an amendment. We balanced it in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. And 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 4 years. Now, 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, that what we need is a balanced budget.

How do we get to a balanced budget?

The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) pointed out he was a county commissioner. Now, I'll bet as a county commissioner he probably had to pay for what he bought. He gave the analogy, if you've got X coming in, then 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've 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. Then we had extraordinary growth in our economy, and 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 PAYGO and sometimes he did not, and your party abandoned the principle of paying for what you bought in 2001.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Roby). The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. NADLER. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. HOYER. As a result of abandoning that PAYGO responsibility, you could cut revenues very deeply and not pay for them, not cut spending. It takes no courage, I suggest to my friends, to cut taxes--none whatsoever. Everybody is happy. Paying for bills is a lot tougher. It requires a lot more courage, a lot more responsibility. But you jettisoned statutory PAYGO in the 2000s, 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 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 on this Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, but let us do it day after day after day. Then when the issues come before you, have the courage to either vote against spending or to vote for the revenues to pay for what all of us have wanted to buy.

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind the Members that remarks in debate must be addressed to the Chair and not to others in the second person.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 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 have been Republican Congresses. Although, I would point out to the gentleman that, when we were in the majority and when we had President Bill Clinton and when we had those four balanced budgets, he voted for one but not the three others. We did not cut taxes then. Taxes were cut after the attack on this country, on September 11, 2001, to stimulate the economy, and we got roundly criticized for the deficits that ran up during that time.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield? Because the gentleman is not accurate on that.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I will yield to the gentleman from Maryland in just a minute.

This chart show that, in 2004, we had a $400 billion deficit. It was the highest deficit in American history, and it was part of the reason we lost our majority later on. Then in 2007, as the deficit stepped down each of the interceding years, the gentleman from Maryland became the majority leader, and the gentlewoman from California became the Speaker of the House--and look at what has happened to our deficits ever since.

The Congress writes budgets; the Congress doesn't balance budgets. Both parties are to blame.

There have been six balanced budgets in the last 50 years. In 37 of those years, Democrats 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 time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. HOYER. The gentleman, I take it, has no time to yield.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I don't. I have all these speakers.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished whip.

Mr. HOYER. The gentleman's chart is very interesting. He talks about voting for budgets.

I didn't agree with some of the priorities in your budget; that's accurate. He is correct that we didn't cut taxes, but he is 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. You said it would destroy the economy.

We had the best economy and the largest budget surplus that you've had and an administration that is the only administration in your lifetime that ended its 96 months with a surplus, Bill Clinton's.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source