Jesse Jackson

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, the current budget situation is most poignant when looking at the origins of the Balanced Budget Amendment and its history. Mr. Speaker, after listening to my colleague's across the aisle present the Republican Study Committee's budget this morning, I'm apt to wonder what it is they're studying over there. Hopefully I'll be able to set the record straight. As a reaction to FDR's New Deal, Republican Congressman Harold Knutson of Minnesota introduced the first version of the amendment in 1936. Like many Constitutional Amendments, this resolution did not receive a hearing or a vote. During President Dwight D. Eisenhower's first term, the Judiciary Committee of a barely Democratic Senate held its first hearing on this amendment. It again did not receive a vote. After these partial defeats, BBA supporters shifted their focus to the states. From 1975 to 1980, 30 state legislatures passed resolutions calling for a constitutional convention to propose this Amendment directly to the states. The election of President Reagan and a Republican Senate in 1980, renewed hopes for the Balanced Budget Amendment and passage by Congress. While the Senate did adopt the amendment in 1982, it failed to garner the necessary three-fifths majority in the House. This failure energized conservative groups such as the National Taxpayers Union and the National Tax Limitation Committee to refocus on state action. In 1982 and 1983, the Alaska and Missouri legislatures passed resolutions supporting the BBA, bringing the total number of these resolutions to 32, two short of the 34 needed for a convention. However, a growing concern about the scope of a constitutional convention led some states to withdraw their resolutions, re-shifting focus to Congressional action. From 1990 to 1994, Congress would make three additional attempts to codify this amendment. All failed to garner the necessary three-fifths majority. However, the BBA made a comeback when it was included in Newt Gingrich's Contract with America. Twenty-six days after taking office, the newly empowered Republican majority adopted the BBA, giving conservatives their first Congressional win in a decade. Disappointment awaited in the Senate, where two separate votes fell just short of adoption. This failure, along with the balanced budget and the Budget surplus at the decade's end, sapped any remaining Congressional support for the BBA. There was renewed Republican support for the amendment in 2000 as it was included in party's platform. The Bush Tax Cuts, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the massive deficit spending created by them eventually led Republicans to sweep the Balanced Budget Amendment black under the rug. By 2004, the Republican Party left any mention of a balanced budget out of their platform. Again in recent years, with the advent of the Tea Party and the return of extreme fiscal conservatism in the Republican party, there are currently twelve Balanced Budget Amendments in the House and three in the Senate. I had my staff double check that for me. 12 Balanced Budget Amendments in the House. They are all basically the same. Some have even been offered by members of my own party. I understand these Members' frustration, Mr. Speaker.--I've been trying pass my nine Amendments to the Constitution for 10 years now and my Amendments are based on FDR's ``2nd Bill of Rights'' which he proposed back in 1944. Today, 67 years later, here we are. Mr. Speaker, I fundamentally believe that conservatives in congress are pushing for this amendment, not to force a vote in congress, but to rally states to act. Mr. Speaker, we have a troubling national debt and deficit. But the Balanced Budget Amendment is not the solution. The argument proponents of Balanced Budget Amendment make is as follows: like families, businesses, and states, the federal government should balance its budget. But since it does not, we need a constitutional amendment to guarantee that it will do so. Nearly every state in this Union has some form of a balanced budget requirement. But those states are not out of debt. Their amendments have restricted their ability to care for their citizens in times of austerity or emergency. According to a Forbes analysis of the global debt crises in January of 2010, every single state in the country is carrying some form of debt. These debts range from as little as $17 per capita in Nebraska to $4,490 in Connecticut. How can this be, Mr. Speaker? It's because the infrastructure of these states allows them to hide debt in Capital Funds. The federal government cannot, and I would argue the federal government should not follow this path. Congress should never seek to hide the fiscal realities from the public that bear the burden of the cost. Nor should we sell the public magic beans that a Balanced Budget Amendment will make the national debt and other problems go away. Debt will exist just as new problems will arise. In the fiscal year 2012, approximately 44 states will face revenue shortfalls. Many are desperately looking for ways to declare their state bankrupt. Bankrupt, I say it again, Mr. Speaker, because this proposed amendment would place the federal government in a similar predicament. The effect in many states is calamitous. For instance in Rhode Island, judges and court workers have cut pay and left 53 positions unfilled. This is still not enough to balance their budget. As a desperate last resort, the Chief Justice has begun to dispose of cases on backlog. Literally, just tossing them out. Florida is in the same predicament. Mr. Speaker, a Balanced Budget Amendment would force the federal government to deny Americans the right to seek redress and justice in federal courts, for the sake of balancing the budget. In my home state of Illinois, mental-health services have been cut by $91 million. Human Service directors are fearful that these cuts will cause a real public-health and public safety crisis. Iowa, Idaho, Alabama and Ohio are considering drastic cuts to education. My colleagues across the aisle are so concerned about handing our children and grandchildren any amount of national debt, that they have failed to realize we are setting future generations up for failure. States are already cutting too many services that make the American workforce strong and competitive. Should the federal government do the same, our legacy will be an America that is uneducated and ill-equipped to compete on a global level. Mr. Speaker, as exemplified by its effects on the states, this amendment may sound good on its face, but it falls flat when examined more critically. Like an optical illusion whose image changes as you draw closer, the Balanced Budget Amendment masquerades as the savior of our budget, yet in reality threatens to permanently destroy it. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Citizens for Tax Justice, and others, a federal Balanced Budget Amendment would: Damage our economy by making recessions deeper and more 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. Therefore, passing a Balanced Budget Amendment is not a prudent path for the nation to follow.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, the First Fault: a Balanced Budget Amendment would damage the economy and make recessions deeper and more frequent. Under a Balanced Budget Amendment, Congress would be forced to adopt a rigid fiscal policy, requiring the budget to be balanced or in surplus every year, regardless of the current economic situation, or threat to the nation's security. A sluggish economy with less revenue and more outgoing expenditures creates a deficit. As we've seen from recent events, a deficit necessitates economic stimulation to reverse negative growth. That is why in the last session of Congress, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act invested in roads, bridges, mass transit, and other infrastructure, provided 95% of working Americans with an immediate tax cut and extended unemployment insurance and COBRA for Americans hurt by the economic downturn through no fault of their own. If Congress were forced to function under a Balanced Budget Amendment, deficit reduction would be mandated, even more so during periods of slow or stalled economic growth, which is the opposite of what is needed in such a situation. This consistently proposed constitutional amendment risks making recessions more common and more catastrophic for middle class families, seniors, veterans and the poor. Under such an amendment, Congress is stripped of any power to adequately respond. The Second Fault: A BBA would risk default and jeopardize the full faith and credit of the U.S. government while simultaneously challenging the Separation of Powers. A BBA would bar the government from borrowing funds unless a three- fifths vote in both houses of Congress permitted a raise in the debt limit. Under such a scenario, a budget crisis in which a default becomes a threat is more likely, and because of the limits placed on the fluidity of the debt ceiling, that default becomes more likely to occur. After a default of only a few days, long term impacts would quickly appear. Confidence in ability of the U.S. to meet binding financial obligations would erode almost immediately. The government pays relatively low interest rates on its loans because it pays its debts back in full and on time. A default would mimic an earthquake, shaking confidence in the U.S. on a global scale, resulting in exploding interest rates and aftershocks felt in our national economy. The international economy would also succumb to the rumbling of this potential disaster, and our deep connection to it would cause even further chaos here at home. Other BBA proponents argue that since states have to balance their budgets, so should the federal government. Indeed, many states are required to balance their operating budgets, but not their total budgets. No such distinction is made by a BBA. ``Rainy-day'' or reserve funds, which states can draw on to balance their budgets, are prohibited by a BBA. Many states operating under a BBA require the governor to submit a balanced budget, but do not require actual achievement of it. Some states allow governors to act unilaterally to cut spending in the middle of a fiscal year. This condition of the BBA would violate the federal Constitution's separation of powers. The Founding Fathers were deliberate in their construction of government, and the separation of powers serves as a cornerstone in our democracy. Each branch has certain powers and limitations. Congress, the Courts, and the President work together, but in distinct ways, to move America forward. The threat of judicial involvement in matters of the budget, is real and present under the BBA. The BBA would threaten the balance of power. It diminishes the authority of Congress, as the elected Representatives of the people, to have the final say on taxes and spending. Mr. Speaker, what purpose does this body serve if this amendment passes? Should we broaden the scope of Judicial Review granted to our federal courts? By subverting the balance of power between the branches, this body steps on to a slippery slope of reassigning authority and moving away from the values inherent in our constitution. The Third Fault: A BBA would lead to reductions in needed investments for the future. Since the 1930's our nation has consistently made public investments that improve long-term productivity growth: in education, infrastructure, research and development. These efforts encourage increased private sector investment, leading to budget surplus, and a thriving economy. A Balanced Budget Amendment, which requires a balanced budget each and every year, would limit the government's ability to make public investments thereby hindering future growth. For years, conservatives have abused the debt and the deficit as a springboard from which to argue for smaller government and cuts to programs that serve as social safety nets to American families. Although we must consider the debt and deficit, the larger and more significant issue is the nature of the debt--what created it. If you invest fifty thousand dollars in a business, a house, or an education, you can expect future returns on your investment. If you ``invest'' the same fifty thousand dollars in a gun collection and ammunition, what are the future investment returns? Both investments result in a fifty-thousand-dollar debt, but only one results in returns that can transform that debt into a long term gain. Social investments provide the potential for greater returns in the long run, in the same fashion as personal investments. Even small expenditures on social programs lay a foundation for great wealth in the long term. If the nation chose to invest over a five-year period, $1.5 trillion in the building of roads, bridges, airports, railroads, mass transit, schools, housing, and health care, we would create a debt. But the increased ability of companies to interact and ship their goods over well paved and planned roads, the new businesses that would sprout around a freshly built or newly expanded airport, the higher wages of a student who was well educated and a le to attend college resulting in more tax revenue, the improved productivity of employees at their healthiest, would eventually result in greater returns for our country. The extension of Bush era tax cuts for corporations and the rich, brought about some short-term stimulus of consumer spending. But, similar to Reagan's tax cuts which resulted in record government deficits and debt, the long term damage outweighs the immediate effects. Reagan's tax cuts for the rich came at the expense of investing in our nation's need for long-term balanced economic growth. The Reagan administration neglected and cut back on our nation's investment in infrastructure, education, health care, housing, job training, transportation, energy conservation, and much more. The inclination of most conservatives in both parties, is to cut the debt by cutting programs for the most vulnerable among us--our poor, our children, our elderly, and minorities. This approach, however, has been proven false too many times. A Balanced Budget Amendment would take us back to this archaic and ineffective system, permanently. The Fourth Fault: A Balanced Budget Amendment favors wealthy Americans over middle- and low-income Americans by making it harder to raise revenues and easier to cut programs. Again, a BBA ultimately favors wealthy Americans over middle- and lower-income Americans. Under current law, legislation can pass by a majority of those present and voting by a recorded vote. The BBA however requires that legislation raising taxes be approved on a roll call vote by a majority of the full membership of both houses. Thus, the BBA would make it harder to cut the deficit by curbing the special interest tax breaks of the oil and gas industries and make it easier to reduce programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, veterans benefits, education, environmental programs, and assistance for poor children. Wealthy individuals and corporations receive most of their government benefits in the form of tax entitlements while low income, and middle income Americans receive most of their government benefits through programs. As evidenced by the cuts that both parties agreed upon recently, its far easier to cut social welfare programs than to cut spending on our military, or to increase taxes. As long as spending is a political issue, cuts to those programs that assist those with the smallest voice in government, will always happen first. Raising taxes, the only option to address a budget deficit aside from cutting programs, is already a burdensome political issue. The additional requirements of a BBA further complicate the process of raising taxes. This means that the richest Americans will likely keep the benefits they receive from our government via tax cuts. Meanwhile, the poor lose the programs that provide them with housing, food, job training, health care, and the means to survive. This will further reinforce the growing gap between the rich, and the rest of our society: middle class, working poor, and destitute alike. Aside from this already distressing point, when the baby boom generation retires, the ratio of workers to retirees will fall to low levels. This poses difficulties for Social Security, since Social Security has been a pure ``pay-as-you-go'' system, with the payroll taxes of current workers paying for the benefits of current retirees. This was acceptable as long as today's workers could pay for today's retirees. But, in the future, when there are fewer workers to pay for more retirees, the system will be out of balance. So in 1977 and 1983, the Social Security Administration took important and prudent steps toward addressing this issue. It allowed the accumulation of reserves to be used later when needed. These changes were akin to what families do by saving for retirement during their working years, and then drawing down on their savings after they reach retirement. The BBA insists that the total government expenditures in any year, including those for Social Security benefits, not exceed total revenues collected in that same year, including revenues from Social Security payroll taxes. Thus, the benefits of the baby boomers would have to be financed in full by the taxes of those working and paying into the system then. This undercuts the central reforms of 1983. Drawing down on any part of accumulated reserves, required under present law, under a BBA would mean the trust funds were spending more in benefits in those years than they were receiving in taxes. Under a BBA, that would be impermissible deficit spending. The Fifth Fault: A BBA weakens the principle of majority rule and makes balancing the budget more difficult. Most Balanced Budget Amendments require that unless three-fifths of the members of Congress agree to raise the debt ceiling, the budget must be balanced at all times. They also require that legislation raising taxes must be approved on a roll call vote by a majority of the full membership of both houses, not just those present and voting. Clearly this provision weakens the current principle of majority rule. A three-fifths requirement empowers a minority (40 percent, plus one). It creates a small group, willing to threaten economic turmoil and disruption unless they get their way, with the ability to extort concessions or exercise unprecedented leverage over our national economic and fiscal policy. Mr. Speaker, haven't the last few weeks demonstrated how difficult it already is to reach consensus on a budget? This provision will make it simply impossible. Ezra Klein Argument: There is a final fault, which is not on my list, but is significant enough to mention: Ezra Klein, of the Washington Post, cleverly points out in a recent article titled, ``The Worst Idea in Washington'' that under a BBA, not a single budget of the Bush or Reagan Administrations would qualify as Constitutional. In fact, the only recent Administration which would not violate the requirements of the Balanced Budget Amendment would be President Clinton for only two of his budgets. Mr. Speaker, if President Reagan's budget wouldn't qualify, is this really something we should even be considering? Conclusion: I've listed a few, and certainly not an exhaustive list, of arguments against the Balanced Budget Amendment. The truth is the federal budget is quite unlike the fiscal practices of businesses, families, and states. Contrary to popular myth, except in times of war and recessions, the country has a conservative record of keeping deficits in line. Our government needs the flexibility to respond in times of economic downturn or war, in a way that businesses, families and states never have to consider. I've been in the House long enough to know, that when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle came into the majority with large deficits and debt, I knew their first response would be to cut social spending, weaken government regulation, and underfund protection of workers' rights, civil rights, environmental protections, you name it. I wish I could say I didn't see this coming. But, conservative politicians want to get the government ``off the backs'' of business, finance and industry. They are willing and ready to use the current economic situation to do it and they intend to place the burden on the backs of middle class families, seniors, children, veterans and the poor. The Republican budget we voted on today does just that. The Balanced Budget Amendment aims to make it a permanent fixture. Mr. Speaker, I know we can do better. We cannot balance the budget on the backs of middle class Americans. We need to achieve the America of everyone's dreams. The burden of that dream must rest squarely on the shoulders of every American that can carry it. I find it offensive that some of the most profitable corporations in this country pay no taxes and some even get a refund. I find it offensive that the richest 400 people in the country who have more wealth than half of all Americans combined have an effective tax rate of only 16.6%. In the words of William Jennings Bryan, ``When I find a man who is not willing to bear his share of the burdens of the government which protects him, I find a man who is unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a government like ours.'' With those wise words, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, tonight or in the very near future, I want everyone within the sound of my voice to read or reread Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s, ``I Have a Dream'' speech, a speech that I usually refer to as his ``insufficient funds or bounced check'' speech. I've often thought: I wonder what Dr. King's speech would sound like if he were here today to give it. Well, I'm not presumptuous enough to pretend that I know exactly what Dr. King would say. I really don't. But I thought it would be challenging and interesting to go through his speech, change it as little as possible, but insert today's circumstances and my own thoughts on how I think Dr. King's speech might have sounded if it were given today. So that's what I propose to do tonight. After all, on August 27, we will dedicate the King Memorial here in Washington, D.C., the day before his historic anniversary of the ``I Have a Dream'' speech on August 28. As my colleagues have now departed this institution for the August recess to return to their homes far and near, I thought it would be especially appropriate that the final speech delivered after this very tumultuous debate would give reference and reverence to the extraordinary insight of Martin Luther King, Jr. I also thought in light of the budget cutting deal and the bounced check and insufficient funds deal that was passed today in the Congress that it would also be appropriate. So tonight I want to try and give what some might call an updated version of Dr. King's ``I Have a Dream'' speech and what it might have sounded like today. Again, I make no pretense that my paraphrased version of Dr. King's speech does his original version any justice. But the following is my paraphrased version of that speech after reflecting upon today's budget deal. Paraphrasing Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s ``I Have a Dream'' speech, and for those of you who are in your offices listening to the sound of my voice, you might want to Google or go on the Internet and actually find the true text of Dr. King's speech and actually compare it to my exercise. Especially in light of today's budget deficits, cumulative debt, the need to raise the debt limit, and in the context of the need to also fight for jobs, education, health care, housing, equal rights for women, renewable energy, fair taxation and for the fundamental right to vote, Dr. King might have delivered this speech: I would have been happy today to join with those willing to take a balanced approach to budget cuts and revenue enhancements to bring about the greatest deficit reduction and debt reduction along with the most massive full employment plan in the history of our Nation. But that is not what the President and congressional leaders negotiated. Nine score and four years ago on September 17, 1787, 39 great Americans signed the U.S. Constitution as witnesses. This momentous decree came as a beacon light of hope to millions of Americans who had been seared in the flames of British injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of taxation without representation. But 224 years later, the American people are not free of deficits and debt. Two hundred twenty-four years later, the life of many Americans is still sadly crippled by the manacles of foreclosed homes and the chains of unemployment. Two hundred twenty-four years later, many Americans live on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. Two hundred twenty-four years later, many Americans still languish in the corners of American society and find themselves as exiles in their own land. And so we were elected as President and as Congresspersons to end this shameful condition. In a sense, the American people are looking to our Nation's capital, the President and the Congress, to be able to cash a check. When the architects of our Republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all Americans would be guaranteed the ``unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'' It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as many of her citizens are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, Congress has given many Americans a bad check, a check which has come back marked ``insufficient funds.'' But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this Nation. And so, many Americans are still waiting to cash this check, a check that will give them upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of a job and justice. They are also looking to this President and this hallowed Congress to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of unemployment to the sunlit path of full employment. Now is the time to lift our Nation from the quicksands of inequality of income and wealth to the solid rock of economic justice. Now is the time to make full employment and social and economic justice a reality for all of God's children. It would be fatal for the Nation to overlook the urgency of this moment. This sweltering summer of Americans' legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of jobs and equality. 2011 is not an end but a beginning, and those who hope that those who are currently blowing off steam and will soon be content will have a rude awakening if the Nation returns to business as usual, and there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until Americans are granted their full citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our Nation until the bright day of full employment and economic justice emerges. But there is something that must be said to those who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of jobs and justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for jobs by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protests to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting oppressive economic forces with the spiritual force of unrelenting, but disciplined, determination. This marvelous new militancy which has engulfed many Americans must not lead us into a distrust of all politics and all politicians, for some politics and politicians are committed to full employment, social and economic justice, and some politicians also realize that their destiny is tied up with this larger destiny. Some politicians have come to realize that their jobs as Congresspersons are inextricably bound to Americans also having jobs. We cannot walk alone, and as we walk we must make a pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of social and economic justice, ``When will you be satisfied?'' We can never be satisfied as long as the American people are the victim of the unspeakable horrors of home foreclosures. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain a job at a livable wage. We cannot be satisfied as long as the education of America's children leaves them uncompetitive in a new world market. We can never be satisfied as long as our health care system is ranked 37th in the world. We cannot be satisfied as long as one person in America cannot vote or one American believes they have nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until ``jobs and justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream.'' I am not unmindful that many Americans are experiencing great trials and tribulations. Some Americans are fresh from job rejections, and some Americans have been refused an adjustment to their mortgage which has left their family battered by the storms of home foreclosures and staggered by the winds of homelessness. You have become the veterans of unearned suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go forward in Mississippi, go forward in Vermont, go forward in Michigan, go forward in Hawaii, go forward in Oregon, go forward in Florida, go forward in the ghettos and barrios of our cities and in rural Appalachia knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends. And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American Dream. I have a dream that one day this Nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'' I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together around a table of brotherhood where full employment, high quality health care for all Americans, excellence in education for every child, and safe, sanitary and affordable housing for every family is their natural experience. I have a dream that one day, absent the false excuse of sweltering deficits and debt and the heat of economic injustice, America will be transformed into an oasis of full employment, freedom and economic justice. I have a dream that my two little children will one day live in a Nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character, and that voting will be as natural as breathing, and no trickery or legal obstacles will be thrown in their path. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day over Michigan, over Ohio, Illinois and Indiana, with its wicked unemployment and suffering families, that one day right there in Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and Indiana, all of these families will be able to enjoy full employment, social and economic justice, and all will be able to join hands as brothers and sisters. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain and the crooked places will be made straight ``and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.'' This is my hope, and this is the faith that I go forward with every day. With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of deficits and debt a stone of economic hope and justice for all Americans. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of unemployment and home foreclosures into a beautiful symphony of full employment and affordable housing. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free and fully employed one day. And this will be the day. This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning: My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride, From every mountainside, let freedom ring. And if America is to be a great Nation, this must become true. And so let freedom, full employment, and the right of private and public workers to organize into unions to protect their interests ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom and public education of equal high quality for all of America's children ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring and health care of equal high quality for all Americans ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania. Let freedom and a clean, safe, and sustainable environment ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado. Let freedom ring with safe and sanitary and affordable housing from the curvaceous slopes of California. But not only that, let freedom and equal rights for women, for gays and lesbians ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia. Let freedom, fair and progressive taxation ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee. Let freedom and the right and the ability to vote ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom, social and economic justice ring throughout America. And when this happens, when, my friends, we allow freedom, full employment, social and economic justice to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every State and every city, we will be able to speed up the day when all of God's children, black men, white men, women, Jews, Gentiles, and Muslims, Protestants and Catholics, gays and straights, those who are whole and those who are handicapped, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we are free at last. I want to remind everyone that I just finished giving my paraphrased version of what I thought Dr. King might have said had he been alive today and witnessed this debate, especially in light of the budget cutting, the insufficient funds, the bounced check deal that Congress passed on this day. I tried to remain as faithful as possible to the original speech, simply filling in my own thoughts and ideas in the current context, but I make no pretense to have done justice to the original version. Again, I urge my friends and my colleagues and all those who can hear my voice to read or reread Dr. King's ``I Have a Dream'' speech at your earliest convenience. Mr. Speaker, it is in this speech that Dr. King delivered the economic substance of his expectations of Democrats and Republicans in the Congress. America has issued all of us a bad check. It has come back marked ``insufficient funds.'' But we refuse to believe that the great vaults of opportunity of this Nation are bankrupt. If we can spend billions of dollars to put a man on the Moon, if we can spend billions of dollars on a war in Afghanistan, spend billions of dollars on a war in Iraq, spend tens of millions of dollars per week on a war in Libya, then, Mr. Speaker, this Congress can find enough money to put a man on his own two feet right here in America. I have not given up on America, and I hope we don't give up on America. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following: ``Big Deal'' Is Foundation for ``Long-Term Austerity'' why i voted ``no'' on the budget deal (Statement By Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.) As a result of the ``Big Deal'' that House Speaker John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell negotiated--and approved by the House and Senate--welcome to ``Austere America.'' The era of austerity has begun! Democrats were faced with two draconian choices: (1) vote ``against'' the package and the result would be a job killing default according to House Speaker Boehner; or (2) vote ``for'' the package and, from my perspective, the result will be a job killing austerity. The budget negotiators absolutely concluded a ``Big Deal.'' It's a ``game changer.'' The United States is about to become the austere Japan of the 1990s and the austere Great Britain of 2011. Budget deficits and debt will go up--not down. Unemployment will go up--not down. Suffering by the American people will go up--not down. Economic growth will remain stagnant or slow at best and will not address the need for jobs for the unemployed. In short, I predict the result of this agreement will be the opposite of the current spin. While all Democrats agree that reducing the deficits and taming the debt is something that must be dealt with in the future, the immediate issue is not ``deficit reductions'' but ``job reductions'' (i.e., creating enough jobs for 17 million unemployed Americans). Reducing federal spending in a weak economy is the exact opposite of what is needed now. Republicans and conservative Democrats preposterously argue ``tax and budget cuts will equal more jobs and more tax revenues''--the ``Laugher'' Curve. The biggest tax cuts in history in 2001 and 2003 resulted in the loss of 600,000 private jobs over eight years. To stimulate the economy, the Congress passed and the President signed a $757 billion stimulus package that kept us out of another Great Depression, but it was unable to rescue unemployed workers from the current Great Recession. The Republican argument reminds me of the man whose house caught on fire and when he couldn't put it out with a garden hose he concluded, ``Water doesn't put out fire.'' Water does put out fire, but you have to have enough of it to fit the size of the fire, and you have to put it in the right place. Some argue--because of the possibility of default--the President and Democrats had no alternative. I disagree. First, even the threat of using Section 4 of the 14th Amendment by the President (which he took off the table) would have strengthened his negotiating hand. Second, he could have fought for an alternative strategy of invest, grow and build which would have put Democrats on our turf and on the offense instead of on the Republicans turf and on the defense--and such a plan would create jobs, reduce deficits and debt. The most vulnerable Americans will again suffer the most under this agreement. This is a very bad and sad day for America.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me for a question, but first, I just want to indicate to Mr. Duncan's son that we're going to do everything we can to get him a baseball even if his dad is a little slow this month. My question is about the balanced budget amendment, if the gentleman from Arizona would share with us how that would work. I have heard a number of Members come down and talk about the idea that we are going to vote on it, that it needs to happen. But at least as I understand it, the interpreter of the Constitution, obviously, would be the Federal courts in that if Congress were unable to achieve a balanced budget in any fiscal year, a lawsuit could be brought under the balanced budget amendment that would throw the process into the Federal judiciary, allowing Federal judges then to determine what constitutes balance or imbalance. If the gentleman would take some time to share with us how, from his perspective, that would work.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for allowing me to ask him one final question. Is there any concern that a balanced budget amendment would be legalizing the legislative process and politicizing the judiciary? What I mean by that is all Federal judges are, obviously, appointed by the President of the United States, and they go through a process in the Senate. Is there any concern that those Federal judges could be queried over what programs they support and what programs they don't support, and therefore, it would stand as a basis for their own, if you will, politicizing of the judicial process, which presently is not involved in the political process? Then, if you don't mind sharing with us, what are the ramifications?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Cut, cap, and balance--that's the Republican economic vision. Democrats should have a different economic vision for America--invest, build, and grow. Invest: Conservatives say the Federal budget should be like families and businesses, and I agree. But families and businesses don't balance their budgets as Republicans pretend. Families and businesses go into debt by investing rationally in their future. Families go into debt by purchasing homes and cars and sending their children to college. Businesses go into debt to grow their companies. We should invest in things that will put Americans to work in a full employment economy and make America's future bright with balanced economic growth. Build: We need to put America back to work by building America. The New Deal did not pull us out of the Great Depression; World War II did. The government--not the private sector-- the government's conduct of the war and the government's role in steering the economy won World War II and pulled us out of the Great Depression. Government did that. Government stimulated the public and the private economy. If we rationally invest a similar amount of money in our domestic economy as we did to win World War II, we can pull America out of this Great Recession just like we pulled America out of the Great Depression. Grow: We need to grow the economy in a balanced fashion. Two large tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 to the wealthy and big corporations--the so- called ``job creators''--didn't create jobs in the private sector. Indeed, only 1 million net new jobs were created between 2001 and 2009, all government jobs. The private sector reported minus 600,000 jobs. So much for giving tax breaks to the ``private job generators.'' Some argue against all debt, but all debts aren't bad because all debts are not the same. A $50,000 gambling debt is bad because it has no return. The last decade showed that gambling on tax cuts for the rich to create jobs was bad. Gambling on two wars and not paying for them was bad. Gambling on a new prescription drug law that was unpaid for was horrible. And gambling on unregulated financial institutions that failed was bad. They resulted in a housing market collapse, slow economic growth, high unemployment, and huge deficits and debts--all bad. So I think we've gambled enough on the theory that budget cuts and tax cuts generate private sector jobs and more taxes. The Laffer Curve is truly a laugher. One more point, however, Mr. Speaker, where Republicans are right. We do have a spending problem. We spent too little in the economic stimulus package of 2009 and we spent it on the wrong things, one-third of which were tax cuts for the rich that conservative Republicans insisted be included, even though they still voted against it. Rather than spending to create jobs by directly investing in things we need-- new schools, new hospitals, new water and sewer systems, public transportation, high speed rail, bridges, ports, airports, and more-- Congress passed an economic stimulus package that kept us from falling into a Great Depression. But it was not enough to generate the growth necessary to create the number of jobs that we need. But too many in Congress drew the wrong conclusion. It reminds me of a man whose house caught on fire, and when he tried to put it out with a garden hose, he concluded that water does not put out fires. Water does put out fires, Mr. Speaker, but you have to have enough of it to fit the size of the fire. You have to put it in the right place. So, there you have it, Mr. Speaker, two choices for America: Cut, cap, and balance or invest, build, and grow. That's the choice before the American people. Both visions offer constitutional amendments. Cut, cap, and balance offers a balanced budget amendment that guarantees slow growth and few jobs. But a different vision of invest, grow, and build can be enhanced with a different set of constitutional amendments--education, health care, and the environment, just to name three. According to the Congressional Research Service, over 51 percent of all jobs in America are tied to the First Amendment--television networks, radio stations, the recording industry, wire services, Facebook, Google, iPad, movie studios, the Internet, newspapers, magazines, and more. In fact, most corporate activity in America is defined as First Amendment activity. How many jobs would be created if we added an amendment to the Constitution that gave every American student the right to a public education of equal high quality? How many new elementary schools would have to be built? How many old schools would have to be rehabilitated and made modern? How many teachers and counselors would have to be hired? How much wire installed for the Internet? How many computers built and purchased? How many desks built and bought? That's what H.J. Res. 29, an education amendment, would demand. How many jobs would be created if we added an amendment that guaranteed every American the right to health care of equal high quality? how many new hospitals built? how many doctors, nurses, dentists, administrators, and technicians trained? Mr. Speaker, a different vision of America is possible. I am not giving up on our country, and neither should we.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Soon my colleagues will be quoting Dr. King's ``I Have a Dream'' speech, and here's a quote they will not read and they will ignore: ``In a sense, we've come to our Nation's Capital to cash a check. When the architects of our Republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the `unalienable rights' of `life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' ``It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note in so far as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the people a bad check, a check which has come back marked `insufficient funds.' '' But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. The problem, Mr. Chairman, is not that we spend. It's that we don't honor our obligations. We are a Nation that spends billions of dollars to put a man on the Moon, fund the war in Afghanistan, fund the war in Iraq, but we can't find the money in this Congress to put a man on his own two feet right here in America. And there is something more fundamental, Mr. Speaker, that is going on here. This President is being treated differently than other Presidents. No other President has been ``stook up,'' shook down, or held hostage as this President of the United States over this debt vote. This is fundamentally unfair, Mr. Speaker, to change the rules in the middle of the game. Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of the lives lost to date on Cyprus, and in recognition of the continuing conflict and civil rights abuses taking place on the island. On July 20, 1974, Turkey invaded Cyprus in response to a Greek led coup, bringing to life a conflict that had long remained dormant. On that day, Turkish armed forces took control of the Northern portion of the island, and continue to occupy nearly 37 percent of Cyprus' territory today. The continuing occupation has resulted in segregation and division of Greek and Turkish Cypriots, preventing the diverse and peaceful communities that once existed from returning, and inhibiting any communication or peaceful solution to the current crisis. To date, more than 160,000 Turkish mainland settlers have emigrated to Cyrpus, creating an imbalance in the population. In addition to that figure, the continued presence of 43,000 Turkish troops in Cyprus has contributed to tension between either ethnicity. During the course of this conflict, more than 200,000 Greek Cypriots have been forced from their homes; 520 Greek Orthodox churches have been vandalized; 15,000 ecclesiastical items have been lost or stolen; nearly 60,000 Cypriot artifacts have been illegally transferred to other nations; and the property of displaced Greek-Cypriots, including homes and business, has been commandeered by mainland Turkish immigrants. These human rights violations, historical defacements, and cultural destruction of the Cypriot legacy must be stopped. Mr. Speaker, this House and the United Nations have consistently passed resolutions calling for protection of the Cypriot people, restoration of property rights, and the return of stolen historic and religious artifacts. It is critical that a peaceful solution to this standoff is reached, so that all Cypriot people can return to their homes, and rebuild the vibrant, diverse and accepting communities that once existed there. I urge all parties involved to join in negotiating a settlement that will prevent further devastation and restore peace and security to the island of Cyprus.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Reclaiming my time----

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to use the 30 seconds, but I wanted to ask the distinguished gentleman from Indiana a question with my 30 seconds if he would be willing. Will the gentleman engage in a brief question and answer? As I understand it, under your balanced budget amendment, in the event that Congress is unable to achieve a balanced budget, a lawsuit could be filed forcing the Federal judiciary into the budget process. In effect, your balanced budget amendment would reverse the constitutional relationship by legalizing the legislature and politicizing the Judiciary. Is that your expectation, that a Federal judge could ultimately have the final say over budget matters in the House?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, so instead of the Congress of the United States making a judgment about programs and then answering to the people in an elective political process, we are shifting the responsibility to a Federal judge to make a cut in the program; is that correct?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, the responsibility for interpreting the Constitution is a Federal judge. Under a balanced budget amendment, a Federal judge would be responsible for cutting these programs; is that correct?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Is it the gentleman's opinion that under the Republican cut, cap, and balance program----

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Is the gentleman prepared to turn the balancing aspect of this program over to the Federal judiciary?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Is the gentleman prepared to turn the balancing aspect over to the Federal judiciary?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Will it be the responsibility of the Federal judiciary?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'm going to try to speak as quickly as I possibly can. Under the balanced budget amendment, the sole responsibility for interpreting the Constitution of the United States is the Federal court system, a Federal judge. And I wanted to ask the gentleman if he would join me in just an answer to the question--since it's on my time--what would qualify a Federal judge to cut a Federal program? What would qualify them? Would we take them through a process in the Senate, asking them what programs they support? Are we politicizing the judiciary?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I understand the gravity of the legislation before us, but I rise to make a point of order that this bill violates clause 11 of rule XXI. This section of the rule states that it shall not be in order to consider a bill or a joint resolution which has not been reported by a committee until it has been available to Members for 72 hours.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Can the Chair tell the House when H.R. 2278 and H.J. Res. 68 were made available to Members?