Proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, Democrats remain committed to responsibly putting the budget on a fiscally sustainable path through a balanced approach that includes both spending and revenue. But the Republican Constitutional amendment defeated on the House floor today was not the answer. It could have dire consequences for the economy, on needed services to seniors and others, and on the government's ability to quickly and appropriately respond to changing needs.

This Constitutional amendment would have made it easier to cut Social Security or Medicare than to cut corporate tax loopholes or eliminate tax breaks for millionaires. It required a roll call vote by the majority of the whole number of each House--218 votes in the House regardless of how many Members are absent--to raise revenue, but allowed spending cuts with a simple majority vote of those present. Why should there be a different standard for cutting Social Security benefits than for cutting even a dime of special interest tax breaks?

The disparity clearly highlighted that this Amendment was not actually about balancing the budget, but rather about establishing a constitutionally mandated path to impose the Republican budget priorities. In fact, the Amendment would have required even deeper cuts than the House Republican budget resolution, which never reached balance. The Republican budget ran $1.6 trillion in deficits from 2018 through 2021, when this Amendment could have been in effect.

This Constitutional amendment would have jeopardized Social Security and Medicare benefits, veterans' benefits, and all other guarantees to our citizens by limiting annual spending to that year's receipts. Regardless of whether the country has brought in receipts over many years, saving to cover upcoming obligations--and regardless of the retirement guarantee made to our seniors who contributed to the Social Security trust fund throughout their working years--this Amendment would not have let us make those payments unless we had an equal amount of receipts coming in that year.

The Constitutional amendment also would have deprived Congress of the flexibility to address national needs and economic emergencies by limiting spending to the level of that year's receipts. For example, during a recession the Amendment would have required spending cuts or tax increases at the very time the country required additional spending or tax cuts to provide needed help and to boost the economy. Even in the face of a natural disaster there was no emergency exemption to allow immediate extra assistance.

This year has illustrated the economic consequences of risking default on the nation's obligations, yet the Constitutional amendment would have made default more likely by increasing the difficulty of raising the debt limit by requiring a 3/5th supermajority vote. In fact, the need to raise the debt ceiling has no correlation to whether future budgets are balanced; increases in the debt ceiling reflect past decisions on fiscal policy.

Some have argued that this Amendment would have put the federal government in the same position as state governments and households, which balance their budgets. And while many states are required to balance their operating budgets, they still can and do borrow for capital projects. Likewise, families regularly do not balance their budgets on an annual basis; a 30-year home mortgage or a student loan are both examples of ways families can responsibly take on debt and pay it back over time. By requiring the federal government to balance spending and receipts each year--regardless of the country's economic circumstance or the need for immediate resources--the Amendment would have prohibited the nation from making necessary investments.

This Constitutional amendment was not a responsible budget plan. It did not make any of the hard choices necessary to fix our fiscal and economic crisis. Instead, it would have enshrined in the Constitution a fixed budgetary goal without providing guidance on how to reach it or how to enforce it. The Amendment could send budget decisions to the courts, tying up federal budgeting and transferring the power to make the laws from Congress to the federal judiciary. If cases were filed arguing that the budget is not balanced, court involvement could lead to shutting down all federal operations--even emergency services.

The Constitution provides broad guarantees for citizens, but is not designed to implement particular policies. Congress must confront the difficult choices before it. Passing the Amendment may make for good theater, but it is simply a device for pretending we are doing something while ducking difficult choices. Instead, we are working hard now to responsibly put the budget on a sustainable path, and that is the right thing to do.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source