Jesse Jackson

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Who says, Mr. Speaker, that government can't create jobs? The greatest need of the American people today is jobs, but the question before them is this: Who is responsible and how should jobs be created? Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, liberals, moderates, and conservatives all agree that the private sector is the primary source of jobs. However, with 9 percent official unemployment--the reality is it's much higher--and 25 million Americans either unemployed or underemployed, it's self-evident that the private sector has not supplied enough jobs and either can not or will not create enough full- time jobs today to employ the 25 million people who need them. So what do we do? Throw our hands up and say, ``Nothing can be done,'' Congress? Democrats generally believe in ``priming the pump,'' through deficit spending if necessary, to create jobs and stimulate the economy in order to put the overall economy back on track during these times when the private sector has obviously failed us. In the past, many Republicans have generally agreed; but this current Tea Party- Republican Party, all of whom have government jobs and employ government staffs, doesn't agree and generally argues that the government can't create jobs. Really? President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, we are reminded by Michael Hiltzik in his new book ``The New Deal: A Modern History,'' reveals a different truth, which is the source of the following information: FDR was sworn into office on March 4, 1933. He came up with the idea himself of a Civilian Conservation Corps on March 13, the first jobs program of the New Deal. He presented his idea to a White House aide, Raymond Moley, on March 14--an idea that he had just come up with the night before. The idea was to put platoons of young unemployed men to work in the forests and the national parks. That very afternoon, a memo and a skeleton bill went out to the four Secretaries who would be involved in implementing his CCC plan--Frances Perkins, Labor; Henry A. Wallace, Agriculture; Harold L. Ickes, Interior; and George H. Dern, War--the first interdisciplinary agency of the New Deal. The next day, on March 15, the four Secretaries returned a joint response proposing a wider relief program, encompassing not only a Civilian Conservation Corps, but a public works program and a grants- in-aid to States and municipalities for relief. On March 21, FDR sent a message to Congress involving, among other things, his idea of a CCC. In his message, he observed ``more important . . . than the material gains will be the moral and spiritual value of such work . . . We can take a vast army of these unemployed out to healthful surroundings.'' Congress debated and passed the Civilian Conservation Corps program in 8 days, on March 29. By early April, the CCC was open for business. The first registrant was 19-year-old Fiore Rizzo of New York, who arrived on April 7 in a cab with three of his friends at an Army recruiting station in downtown Manhattan. Rizzo belonged to a family of 13, whose father had not worked in 3 years. So how did these government-created jobs work out? The average enrollee signed up at the age of 18\1/2\, stayed for 9 months--6 months was the minimum tour, 2 years the maximum--and gained up to 30 pounds during his term, thanks to three square meals a day served up by the Army quartermasters as fuel for daily labor. The program ramped up quickly. By July, there were 1,300 camps housing 275,000 enrollees, already working vigorously on projects that would rank among the most notable legacies of the New Deal. Before the CCC ended and with the coming of war mobilization in 1942, the CCC built 125,000 miles of roads, 46,000 bridges, more than 300,000 dams to check erosion, planted more than 3 billion trees, and strung 89,000 miles of telephone wire. The camps instilled in many of these young men the concept of an American identity. No doubt the comradery was fostered by a shared resentment of the camps' martial regimen, the rising with the bugler's call, the mandate to keep their bunks and footlockers in order, and the heeding of senior officers without discussion. Mr. Speaker, I can only imagine that, today, these Army quartermasters would demand that our young men pull up their pants. The Army, too, found the experience valuable. As War Secretary George Dern confided to Frances Perkins a year into the program, his officer corps had had to learn ``to govern men by leadership, explanation and diplomacy rather than discipline. The knowledge is priceless.'' The CCC would serve as a model for national service programs of a later era, such as the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps and VISTA. ``There was pride in the work,'' one former boy still recalls 60 years later. ``We built something, and I knew I helped . . . It was something you could take pride in, and there wasn't a lot of pride available in those days.'' Among the New Deal programs, the CCC would inspire almost universal affection, even more so than Social Security. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government can create jobs.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I wish to further submit for the Record the following letter signed by 281 different organizations opposed to this or any Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. It is my intent that this letter supersedes a version previously submitted. Dear Representative/Senator: The 281 undersigned national organizations strongly urge you to oppose any balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. A balanced budget constitutional amendment would damage the economy, not strengthen it. Demanding that policymakers cut spending and/or raise taxes, even when the economy slows, is the opposite of what is needed to stabilize a weak economy and avert recessions. Such steps would risk tipping a faltering economy into recession or worsening an ongoing downturn, costing large numbers of jobs while blocking worthy investments to stimulate jobs and growth and address the nation's urgent needs in infrastructure and other areas. According to a new analysis of a balanced budget amendment by Macroeconomic Advisers, one of the nation's preeminent private economic forecasting firms, if a constitutional balanced budget amendment had already been ratified and were now being enforced for fiscal year 2012, ``the effect on the economy would be catastrophic.'' The analysis reports that if the 2012 budget were balanced through spending cuts, those cuts would have to total about $1.5 trillion in 2012 alone, which they estimate would throw about 15 million more people out of work, double the unemployment rate from 9 percent to approximately 18 percent, and cause the economy to shrink by about 17 percent instead of growing by an expected 2 percent. Additionally, all versions of the balanced budget amendment being considered also contain a provision requiring three- fifths of the whole membership of both houses to raise the debt limit, making risk of default more likely and empowering a willful minority to hold the full faith and credit of the U.S. hostage to whatever other political demands they may have. The difficulty of raising the debt limit this summer illustrates how hard it can be to secure the necessary votes even when the consequences are so grave. Only three of the last 11 debt limit increases obtained three-fifths vote in both chambers; two of those instances occurred amidst the financial crisis in 2008 when the debt limit increases were included in larger legislation to respond to the meltdowns already occurring in the housing and financial markets, and the third occurred this August as part of the Budget Control Act and came only after a bitter process that led the nation to the brink of default. In short, a balanced budget amendment is a recipe for making recessions more frequent, longer, and deeper, while requiring severe cuts that would harshly affect seniors, children, veterans, people with disabilities, homeland security activities, public health and safety, environmental protection, education and medical research. It would almost certainly necessitate massive cuts to vital programs including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits and lead to even deeper cuts than the House-passed budget. A balanced budget amendment has no place in the Constitution of the United States. Our Constitution has served the nation well because it represents enduring principles that are the foundations of our government. It should not be used as a substitute for real leadership on fiscal policy. We strongly urge you to oppose any constitutional balanced budget amendment. Sincerely, 9to5, National Association of Working Women; AFL-CIO; AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth & Families; AIDS Community Research Initiative of America; The AIDS Institute; AIDS Project Los Angeles; AIDS United; Alliance for a Just Society; Alliance for Excellent Education; Alliance for Justice; Alliance for Retired Americans; American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. American Association of Community Colleges; American Association of School Administrators (AASA); American Association of University Professors; American Association of University Women (AAUW); American Counseling Association; American Dance Therapy Association; American Educational Research Association; American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO; American Federation of School Administrators, AFL-CIO; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO; American Jewish Committee. American Medical Rehabilitation Providers Association (AMRPA); American Medical Student Association (AMSA); American Network of Community Options and Resources; American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO; American Psychiatric Association; American Public Health Association; American Rights at Work; American School Counselor Association; Americans for Democratic Action; American-Arab Anti- Discrimination Committee (ADC); The Arc of the United States; Asian American Justice Center, member of Asian American Center for Advancing Justice. Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum; Association for Career and Technical Education; Association of Adult Literacy Professional Developers; Association of Assistive Technology Act Programs (ATAP); Association of Education Service Agencies (AESA); Association of Flight Attendants-- CWA; Association of School Business Officials; Association of University Centers on Disabilities (AUCD); Autism National Committee; AVAC: Global Advocacy for HIV Prevention; Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; Bienestar Human Services; Bread for the World. Break the Cycle; Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO; B'nai B'rith International; Campaign for America's Future; Campaign for Community Change; CANN-- Community Access National Network; Cascade AIDS Project; Center for Family Policy & Practice; Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP); The Center for Media and Democracy; Center for Medicare Advocacy; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; Child Welfare League of America (CWLA); Children's Defense Fund. Children's Dental Health Project; Cities for Progress, Institute for Policy Studies; Citizens for Global Solutions; Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington; Citizens for Tax Justice; Clinical Social Work Association; Coalition for Health Funding; Coalition of Labor Union Women; Coalition on Human Needs; Commission on Adult Basic Education; Committee for Education Funding; Common Cause; Communications Workers of America (CWA); Community Action Partnership. Community Food Security Coalition; Community Organizations in Action; Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED); Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders; Council for Exceptional Children; Council for Opportunity in Education; Council of Administrators of Special Education; Council of the Great City Schools; CREDO Action; Defenders of Wildlife; Democracy 21; Demos; Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO; Direct Care Alliance. Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund; Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children (DEC); Easter Seals; Elev8 (Baltimore, Chicago, New Mexico, and Oakland); Every Child Matters Education Fund; FairTest, the National Center for Fair & Open Testing, Inc.; Families USA; Farmworker Justice; Feminist Majority; First Focus Campaign for Children; Food & Water Watch; Food Research & Action Center (FRAC); Forum for Youth Investment; Foster Family-based Treatment Association. Franciscan Action Network (FAN); Friends Committee on National Legislation; Friends of the Earth; Gamaliel; Gay Men's Health Crisis (GMHC); Generations United; GLSEN; Gray Panthers; Growth & Justice; Half in Ten; Health & Disability Advocates; Health Care for America Now; Health GAP (Global Access Project); HealthHIV; HIV Law Project. Horizons for Homeless Children; Housing Works; Interfaith Worker Justice; International Association of Fire Fighters; International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers; International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers, and Helpers, AFL-CIO; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; International Brotherhood of Teamsters; International Society for Technology in Education; International Union of Police Associations, AFL-CIO; International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Laborers' International Union of North America, (LiUNA!); Latino Commission on AIDS; The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; Leadership Team, Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia; League of Conservation Voters; League of Rural Voters; League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC); League of Women Voters of the United States; Learning Disabilities Association of America; Main Street Alliance; Medicare Rights Center; Mental Health America. NAACP; National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys; National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE); National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity; National Alliance of State & Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD); National Assembly on School-Based Health Care; National Association for Adults with Special Learning Needs; National Association for Children's Behavioral Health; National Association for College Admission Counseling; National Association for Hispanic Elderly; National Association for Music Education; National Association for the Education of Young Children; National Association of Area Agencies on Aging (n4a); National Association of Colored Women's Clubs, Inc. (NACWC). National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities; National Association of County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability Directors (NACBHDD); National Association of Elementary School Principals; National Association of Federally Impacted Schools; National Association of Government Employees/SEIU; National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO); National Association of Letter Carriers; National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services Programs (NANASP); National Association of People with AIDS (NAPWA); National Association of Private Special Education Centers; National Association of School Psychologists; National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP); National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium; National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE). National Association of State Head Injury Administrators; National Association of Thrift Savings Plan Participants; National Black Child Development Institute; National Center for Family Literacy; National Center for Law and Economic Justice; National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence; National Coalition Against Domestic Violence; National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development; National Coalition for LGBT Health; National Coalition for Literacy; National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare; National Congress of American Indians; The National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care; National Council for Community and Education Partnerships (NCCEP). National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare; National Council for the Social Studies; National Council of Jewish Women; National Council of La Raza (NCLR); National Council of Women's Organizations (NCWO); National Council on Independent Living; National Disability Rights Network; National Education Association (NEA); National Employment Law Project (NELP); National Fair Housing Alliance; National Family Caregivers Association; National Federation of Federal Employees; National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund; National Health Care for the Homeless Council. National Hispanic Council on Aging (NHCOA); National Housing Trust; National Immigration Law Center; National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health; National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty; National Low Income Housing Coalition; National Organization for Women (NOW); National Partnership for Women & Families; National Pediatric AIDS Network; National People's Action; National Priorities Project; National Respite Coalition; National Rural Education Advocacy Coalition; National Rural Education Association (NREA). National School Boards Association; National Skills Coalition; National Superintendents Roundtable; National Treasury Employees Union; National Urban League; National WIC Association; National Women's Conference Committee; National Women's Law Center; Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC); NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; Not Dead Yet; OMB Watch; Paralyzed Veterans of America; People For the American Way (PFAW); Population Action International; Progressive States Action. Project Inform; Public Citizen; Public Education Network; Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities Coalition (REHDC); Rebuild The Dream; RESULTS; Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law; School Social Work Association of America; Service Employees International Union (SEIU); Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS); Share Our Strength; Sisters of Mercy Institute Justice Team; Social Security Disability Coalition; Social Security Works; Southeast Asia Resource Action Center; Stand Up for Rural America, Robert S. Warwick, Steering Committee; Stewards of Affordable Housing for the Future (SAHF); Strengthen Social Security Campaign. Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice; TESOL International Association; Transportation Communications Union; Transportation Equity Network; Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO; Treatment Access Expansion Project; Treatment Action Group (TAG); Trust for America's Health (TFAH); Union for Reform Judaism; United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada; United Cerebral Palsy; United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries; United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE); United for a Fair Economy; The United Methodist Church--General Board of Church and Society. United Methodist Women; United Mine Workers; United Spinal Association; United States Student Association (USSA); United Steelworkers (USW); USAction; US Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association (USPRA); VillageCare; Voices for America's Children; Voices for Progress; Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW); Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement (WISER); The Woodhull Sexual Freedom Alliance; Working America; YouthBuild

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 2--the Balanced Budget Amendment. We do need to responsibly reduce our budget deficits and debt, but the best way to do that is by investing, building and growing our economy--or through balanced economic growth--not a Balanced Budget Amendment. What is the most important question to be raised with respect to the BBA? We have serious gaps in our society that need to be narrowed: Economic gaps between the rich and the poor--ask the 99%; social gaps between racial minorities and the majority population; gender gaps-- women earn 76 cents of what men earn; generational gaps--will Social Security be there for the next generation?; and infrastructure gaps-- upgrades to roads, bridges, ports, levees, water and sewer systems, high speed rail, airports and more in order to remain competitive in the world marketplace. So the most important question is this: How does the BBA narrow these economic, social, gender, generational and infrastructure gaps? It won't! It will exacerbate them! The BBA will permanently establish the United States as a ``separate and unequal'' society! The BBA will balance the federal budget on the backs of the poor, the working class and the middle class. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and Citizens for Tax Justice says the BBA would: Damage our economy by making recessions deeper and frequent; heighten the risk of default and jeopardize the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government; lead to reductions in needed investments for the future; favor wealthy Americans over middle- and low-income Americans by making it far more difficult to raise revenues and easier to cut programs; and weaken the principle of majority rule. Before we affirm a BBA, we need to consider our future--not just the future of America's debt, but America's future. Do we want a future that is bright with promise? A future with innovation? A future with the best schools, the brightest students, and the strongest and healthiest workers? Do we want to continue to lead the world? My answer is ``yes.'' Madam Speaker, I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this irresponsible and short-sighted amendment.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. What would the balanced budget amendment do for the Chicago White Sox? I'm a South Sider.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, it is obvious that the balanced budget amendment does not narrow the economic, social, gender, and generational gap and infrastructural gaps in our country. Mr. Speaker, vote down the BBA. Give the American people a reason to believe that the Federal Government can close the gaps that exist.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, I must assume, then, there is no goal of the balanced budget amendment to actually close the infrastructure gap.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman controlling time for the majority. Infrastructure gaps, upgrades to roads in communities that have been left behind, bridges, ports, levees, water and sewer systems--how does the balanced budget amendment propose to close the infrastructure gaps that exist in our society where the States themselves have failed to do so?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I would be happy to yield to the chairman.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, the failure of this balanced budget amendment to not make any distinction between the rich and the poor is part of the fallacy and the problem with the balanced budget amendment. We are here as representatives of the people to close profound gaps that exist between our constituents and the society. We're supposed to be one America. We're supposed to be all Americans. We're supposed to be one people, e pluribus unum, through many, one, going somewhere. But what I'm hearing from the distinguished chairman is that the gaps will not close.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Respectfully, Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it does not reduce the gap between racial minorities and the majority population. My next question, there's a gender gap in our society. Women earn 76 cents to the dollar of what men earn in our society. How does the balanced budget amendment close the gap between what women earn in our society and what men earn in our society?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I'd like my good friend from Virginia, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to engage me in a dialogue on a series of questions. The most important question to be raised with respect to the BBA, 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, Mr. Chairman, is the social gap between racial minorities and the majority population. How does the balanced budget amendment narrow that gap? I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record a letter of national organizations opposing the balanced budget amendment. They include: the Children's Welfare League of America, the Children's Defense Fund, the Children's Dental Health Project, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Division of Early Childhood of the Council For Exceptional Children, the Easter Seals, Every Child Matters Education Fund, Families USA, the Forum for Youth Investment, the Foster Family-based Treatment Association, Horizons For Homeless Children, the National Association for Adults with Special Learning Needs, the National Association For Education of Young Children, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National Association of Private Special Education Centers, the National Association of School Psychologists, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the National Black Child Development Institute, the National Partnership for Women and Families, the National School Boards Association, School Social Work Association of America, YouthBuild USA, the YWCA, the AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth and Families, the Alliance For Educational Excellence, the Association of Education Service Agencies.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Respectfully, Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the balanced budget amendment does not close the gap between women who earn 76 cents to the dollar of what men make, because only the Federal Government in the 50 States can close the gap between what women earn in our society and what men earn in our society. How does the balanced budget amendment close the economic gap between the rich and the poor in our society? I yield to my friend from Virginia.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I would like to know if I can be against the balanced budget amendment without being compared to being a drug addict. Is that doable in this body to maintain some comity? I believe in helping my constituents, but my support of spending isn't tied to a drug addiction.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I withdraw my point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. The gentleman needs to be very careful because I can actually have them read that back to you again.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I am not prepared to go that far. I'd like to hear the gentleman's explanation.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. It's not a point of order that the gentleman has made reference to those of us who are opposed to a balanced budget amendment as having been addicted to drugs? Is that a problem for the comity of this Chamber, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Liberia on the completion of its second peaceful and democratic election. On November 15th, Liberia's National Elections Commission certified President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of the Unity Party as the President of the Republic of Liberia. The November 15 declaration followed a Presidential run-off election on November 8, which was required by the Liberian Constitution as no candidate received a majority of votes in the first round held on October 11. I was encouraged by reports that the Liberian election process was deemed free, fair and transparent by some 4,800 domestic and international observers. The role that the African Union (AU), the Economic Community of West African States, ECOWAS, the Carter Center and other institutions played was crucial in providing additional confidence in the process. I applaud the UN Mission in Liberia for providing a safe and secure environment in which voters were able to cast their ballots without incident on both October 11 and November 8. Furthermore, I applaud the Liberian people on demonstrating their commitment to peace and democracy. I congratulate President Johnson Sirleaf and the newly elected members of the National Legislature, and I hope that they will work together to continue along the path to progress, peace, and prosperity that Liberia has already taken. At the same time, I express my deep regret over the decision of the Congress for Democratic Change, CDC, to boycott the runoff election based upon unproven allegations that the election process was fraudulent. I concur in the sentiments expressed by ECOWAS, the AU and the Carter Center that the CDC boycott deprived the people of Liberia of a dynamic vote in the runoff and created a climate of intimidation and fear in the country. I was saddened by the violent protest that erupted on November 7, the eve of Liberia's runoff election, and I mourn the lives lost on that day, which will remain a shadow cast over an otherwise peaceful and democratic process. I'm pleased by President Johnson Sirleaf's efforts to set up an independent commission to investigate the incident and bring those responsible to justice. I firmly believe that reconciliation is essential to create a sense of national unity and purpose, and I call upon all political party leaders and their supporters to recognize the certified results of the Presidential and Legislative contests. The United States will hold accountable any and all political leaders and their supporters seeking to undermine Liberia's peace and democracy by all means available, including the possible use of multilateral and bilateral sanctions. It is now more important than ever that the United States continue to work with Liberia's elected leaders and stand by the Liberian people as they move to complete their journey into post-conflict success, and sustain the path toward social stability and economic prosperity.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

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.

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.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. May I inquire of the Speaker how much time remains in the Democratic hour.