Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, since the gentleman has admitted that the balanced budget amendment would not deliver the pennant to the White Sox or the Red Sox or the Cubs, or, I suppose, the Yankees, there's no argument to the balanced budget amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. NADLER. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 90 seconds. It is not true, as we have heard on this floor repeatedly today, that both parties are addicted to spending and that the deficit is equally the fault of both parties. It is the fault of George Bush. It is the fault of the Republican Congress. Under President Clinton, a Democratic Congress voted for tax increases and for spending cuts, and produced balanced budgets 4 years in a row of such a significance that we were going to eliminate the entire national debt by 2012. The Republicans came in and without Democratic support voted for huge tax cuts, for two unfunded wars, and for doubling the Pentagon's budget without increasing taxes to pay for it. That generated the huge deficit we have. The deficit was also generated by the fact that, because of, arguably, Republican deregulatory policies, we got into this huge depression caused by Wall Street, and that increased the deficit. In January of 2009, before President Obama took office, 1 month before, the CBO said that the next year's deficit would be $1.2 trillion without this President's having done a thing. The point, as I said before, is that nondefense discretionary spending--everything other than Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, veterans benefits, and interest on the debt--has not increased since 2001 when adjusted for inflation and population growth. So that is not the source of our budget deficit. The source of our budget deficit is that we cut the taxes on the rich and the corporations and that we spent money on wars we didn't pay for. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. The CBO estimated, before President Obama took office, that the next year's deficit would be $1.2 trillion before he did anything. And I would remind us that nondefense discretionary spending in this country has not gone up by a nickel, adjusted for inflation and population growth, since 2001, when we had a huge surplus. The problem is that our taxes on the rich are too low. We cannot reach an agreement in the supercommittee because the Republicans will not tax the rich. That's the basic problem, and a balanced budget amendment will not solve that problem. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Just two comments. First of all, going back to what you were discussing a moment ago, the answer to your question is that under this amendment, 40 percent of either House could hold the entire country hostage against the other 60 percent. Sixty percent could want a balanced budget and there may be a necessity for an increase in the debt ceiling, but 40 percent could say no. Forty percent could hold the country hostage as we saw the country was held hostage this year. With this, it would be much easier to hold the country hostage because the minority, not a small minority, but 40 percent could do it. Secondly, if the gentleman's answer is correct that the courts would exercise judicial restraint and not make decisions on tax increases or revenue or spending cuts, then there's no point to this whole amendment because you're saying it's unenforceable. Either the amendment is enforced by action of the court or it's not enforced.

Mr. NADLER. The amendment is silent. All it says is ``this will happen.'' ``This must happen.'' When this must happen in our system of government, if it doesn't, or if someone thinks it's not going to, they go to court and they ask for a court order to make sure it happens. The court either will--there are two possibilities and only two. One, the court will say, Here's how we'll make an order. We'll raise this tax, we'll lower that expenditure; or the court will say, in which case you have unelected judges making those decisions--and this amendment gives no guidance on how to make those decisions--or the court will say as the gentleman from Virginia just suggested the court would do, the court will exercise judicial restraint and will say this is a political question. We decline to make any order, in which case this amendment is not worth the paper it's written on because it's not enforceable at all. Either it's enforceable by the court saying increase this tax, decrease that expenditure, or it's not enforceable and it's a total joke. One way or the other.

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this misguided attempt to amend our constitution. It is both bad economic policy and bad constitutional policy. Let's start with the basics. While balancing your budget and paying down your debts is important--and we did that under President Clinton-- a balanced budget every year, regardless of the circumstances, even when facing economic crisis, a natural disaster or a terrorist threat, is economically dangerous. We would be risking economic ruin if we enshrined this unyielding rule in the Constitution and shackled future generations to one particular economic policy preference that does not work at all times and in all situations. In general, the economists tell us, in good times, you should have a balanced budget and pay down the debt. In bad times, when a recession increases demands on government and tax revenues fall, or in emergencies, you need to be able to run a deficit. The nonpartisan economists at Macroeconomics Advisers, for example, tell us that if this amendment were in effect next year, in fiscal year 2012, it would eliminate 15 million jobs and double the unemployment rate. And this amendment would shackle future generations in such situations. One thing we can be sure of, this amendment will devastate the economy; destroy Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security; cripple our government's ability to deal with national emergencies, maintain our vital infrastructure, or deal with new challenges as they emerge. Let's be clear on what this amendment does not do. It does not require us to balance the budget the way States or businesses or families do. They're not required to spend no more than that year's income. Families borrow money. If they were told you must pay cash--you want to buy a house, pay cash; you want to buy a car, pay cash--they wouldn't have the house, they wouldn't have the car, the standard of living would be much lower. States borrow money. States have balanced budget amendments generally, but those amendments refer to their operating budgets. They borrow money for their capital budgets to build bridges and roads and highways. The budget of the United States does not make such a distinction, and this balanced budget amendment would say you can never borrow money. You cannot borrow money to build highways, to make investments, to deal with the economy in a recession. It doesn't make sense. Similarly, we collect payroll taxes to pay for Social Security benefits. We collect gasoline taxes to pay for transportation infrastructure, and we carry over unexpended funds in those trust funds from prior years. Because they were paid in prior years, those revenues would not count, only the expenditures. If you paid $100 in Social Security taxes in 1960 and drew $100 of benefits in 2011, the budget would show a deficit of $100 because the tax was paid in a different year, even though it's the same money. No matter how much money we had put away for a rainy day, we would still be limited to spending no more than that year's tax revenues. No one in this room balances their budget that way. What happens when you retire and your income drops? Do you not touch your savings because it didn't come in during that year? Of course not. You're not running a deficit when your expenses equals that year's income plus savings. I know we have a lot of millionaires here, but did anyone pay cash for their home? But this amendment enshrines crazy bookkeeping and distorted policies into our Constitution. So all the chatter about States and businesses and families balancing their budgets is true, but it's irrelevant to what this amendment actually says. Because this is a constitutional amendment, it would give Federal judges, those same unelected, life-tenured Federal judges my Republican friends always complain about, the power to cut spending and raise taxes. Anyone could bring a lawsuit if the budget doesn't balance, if the estimated receipts, in his opinion, didn't match the estimated tax revenues, and a judge would have to decide whose revenue and expenditure estimates were correct. And if they didn't match in the judge's opinion, the judge would have to decide to increase taxes or to cut expenditures and which expenditures it cut, an unelected judge. How is that possible? It's possible because, as a constitutional amendment, the courts will have to have the power to enforce it, just as they do the rest of the Constitution. The Constitution now gives the power to tax in the first instance to the House. All revenue measures must originate here. That's because we are closest to the people--the people's House. This would go as far away from that wise decision as you possibly can by giving that power ultimately to the only part of government that is not elected by the people and that is not accountable at the ballot box--the judiciary. The courts could also order reduction in spending to enforce a balanced budget. They could slash military spending or Social Security or eliminate disaster relief. The voters and Congress would be powerless to stop such decisions. Is this really someone's idea of constitutional conservatism? This amendment isn't limited to a requirement that we balance the budget. It imposes a three-fifths supermajority requirement to raise the debt ceiling. When we considered that in 1995, it never occurred to anyone that any Member of Congress, much less a majority, would consider allowing the United States to default on its debt. It wasn't just considered crazy; it was considered impossible. Today, unfortunately, we live in a different world. This year, for the first time in American history, we nearly defaulted on the full faith and credit of the United States and, for the first time in our history, saw our top credit rating downgraded, and that was for difficulty in getting a simple majority. A three-fifths majority would make it much more difficult. Is this balanced budget amendment necessary? We have been told it's the only way to impose the necessary discipline to force Congress to balance the budget. We know that's not true because we balanced the budget under President Clinton. We turned in four balanced budgets and ran a surplus. In fact, in 2001, Alan Greenspan, testifying in favor of President Bush's proposed tax cuts, said we had to reduce taxes because we were going to eliminate, pay down the entire national debt in 10 years, and that would be a bad thing, he thought, for various reasons. But that was the danger--we'd pay down and eliminate the national debt. But President Bush and a Republican Congress succeeded in turning that record surplus into record deficits in record time. They did it with two huge tax cuts, two unfunded wars, a prescription drug benefit that wasn't paid for, and the rejection of the Democratic Congress' pay-as-you-go rule. It was all done off the books. And I have heard the calumny that it was wild spending by the Obama administration that has brought about our $15 trillion national debt. Well, the truth of the matter is, if you look at non-defense discretionary spending, everything we do, other than defense and Social Security and Medicare and veterans benefits and interest on the debt, adjusted for population and for inflation, it hasn't gone up by a nickel since 2001. The fault, dear colleagues, is not in our Constitution; it's in an irresponsible Republican President and an irresponsible Republican Congress. Many of those same Republican Members who saw nothing wrong with busting the budget, who sat quietly when Vice President Cheney said that deficits don't matter, now demand this assault on our founding document instead of delivering the votes for sound fiscal policy. We should do our jobs, not wreck the Constitution and the economy with snake oil cures like this. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I have to correct what the distinguished gentleman from Virginia said a moment ago when he said that this amendment would not affect Social Security because Social Security would be paid for by the trust fund. This amendment says the total outlays cannot exceed receipts. Total outlays should include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principle. That includes Social Security, which the courts have held is not a debt. Therefore, Social Security would have to be paid out of the same amounts, and they would be counted against the overall outlays when calculating whether the budget is in balance, something that's not the case today. It would throw the budget further out of balance and would require deeper cuts. If this amendment were in effect today, Medicare would have to be cut by $750 billion, Social Security by $1.2 trillion, and veterans benefits by $85 billion through 2021. Despite anything anyone may say on this floor, that's the simple truth about this amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 822, what the Brady Campaign correctly calls the ``Packing Heat on Your Street'' bill. America is in dire economic straits. Millions of people are out of work. Our growth rate is anemic. People are clamoring for Congress to pass legislation to grow the economy and help create jobs. And so what is the House of Representatives doing? This august body is considering gun legislation. The disconnect between the Republican House majority and the American people is beyond belief. It is no wonder that Congress' approval rating is 13 percent, according to the latest Gallup Poll. Not only are we wasting our time on this issue, what the bill does should scare every American. This bill, as amended by the Judiciary Committee, would let a person with a concealed-carry permit issued by one State take his or her weapon into any other State of which they are not a resident, regardless of the laws of that other State. State laws on both gun possession and concealed carry would be overridden. This bill takes away the right of the citizens of each State to set their own gun control policy. For a Republican House majority that supposedly believes in States' rights, this bill is shocking. So, for example, some States require firearms training or require people to be 21 years old to have a concealed-carry permit. All such rules would be tossed aside by this new Federal mandate. I tried to protect States by filing an amendment with the Rules Committee which would have created an exception to the bill to let States enforce laws against persons convicted of sex offenses against minors from possessing guns or having concealed weapons. That amendment was not made in order. I guess it was more important to satisfy the gun lobby than it is to make sure our kids are protected from violent predators. To the extent States want to allow their citizens to enter into other States with concealed weapons, they can do so by entering into reciprocity agreements, and many States have done so. But why would we force those that have not, which have chosen to end reciprocity agreements due to lax standards of another State, why would we force them to accept the concealed-carry permit of every other State? Because any permit would suffice, this bill will create a race to the bottom, with whatever State has the most permissive concealed-carry rules setting national policy. In some States you don't even have to be a resident to get a concealed-carry permit. This lowest common denominator approach will only lead to more people carrying more hidden weapons--packing heat on your street. Knowing there are more concealed handguns all around does not make me feel safer. Lastly, I want to address the constitutional argument. In Heller, the Supreme Court held there is a Second Amendment right for persons to bear arm. Nowhere did the Court say, however, that there is an unlimited national right to carry a concealed handgun. In fact, Justice Scalia recognized the legality of reasonable limits on the Second Amendment. I can't imagine a more reasonable restriction for States to impose than those which govern who can carry a concealed firearm in their own States. I ask that Members reject this deeply flawed and dangerous bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman may be correct. I'm not familiar with that case. But cases making these challenges occur all the time. They lose 100 percent of the time, and there's no reason to expect that that will change. So, again, ``In God We Trust'' was our national motto yesterday and it's our national motto today. Whether this resolution passes or not, it will be our national motto tomorrow, and we're wasting our time. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would point out that the lawsuit that the gentleman from California referred to lost at the Supreme Court, and that was a number of years ago, which adds to the point that, of course, ``In God We Trust,'' our national motto, is not under attack or under threat, nor is ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance under attack or under threat. And this is, in fact, an unnecessary resolution.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I've listened to this discussion. There's no question that most people in this Chamber, maybe everybody in this Chamber, agrees with the phrase, with the motto, ``In God We Trust.'' I certainly do. It's no question it's the motto of this country. We've adopted it. It's no question that it's not threatened. No one's seeking to change it, except for every so often there's a court case which uniformly gets thrown out, and that's not new. There's no necessity for this resolution except, really, the only reason for this resolution, frankly, is to declare how good we are, that we're going to reaffirm what needs no reaffirmation, and to divert attention from the issues that we really ought to be dealing with. So let me say, again, ``In God We Trust'' is the motto of the United States. It was yesterday, it is today, it will be tomorrow whether we pass this resolution or not. We do have to be sensitive to the fact that not everyone in this country believes in God, and they are just as much Americans as those of us who do believe in God. I see no reason for passing this resolution to reaffirm what is already the case and what we've affirmed before. So it's a waste of time. And I am not saying that ``In God We Trust'' is a waste of time, nor that the national motto is simply words or a symbol. They mean something. But this resolution is simply words which does nothing, is intended to do nothing other than to get up and say, we're godly, we're good people. And it's true, we are, I hope. Most of us are. But we don't have to declare it. And we don't have to make people who may not agree with it feel that they're not as American as we are. We don't have to spend the time in this House when we're not spending it on things that are important in terms of something that we can actually change, that we can actually do something about, like creating jobs and affecting the economy. We can't change this. This is the national motto. It will remain the national motto. This resolution changes nothing. If this resolution were saying, let's abolish the national motto, then it would change something and we'd say, well, you can debate it one way or the other. But this changes nothing. It simply diverts attention, it wastes our time, and it is unworthy for that reason. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Although the American people are concerned about restoring our economy and creating jobs, today we are returning to irrelevant issues that do nothing to promote economic growth and put Americans back to work. We have seen this before. In the 107th Congress, we passed a bill to reaffirm the phrase ``One Nation, under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance, and reaffirm the national motto. We went so far as to reenact into law, word for word, the existing law making ``In God We Trust'' the national motto, just to be sure. Now, no one has threatened it. No one has said it was not the national motto. This resolution today, which has no force of law, simply restates the national motto--once again. Why have my Republican friends returned to an irrelevant agenda? Irrelevant because it does nothing. It simply restates existing law that no one has questioned. Why are we debating nonbinding resolutions about the national motto? The American people are demanding action on the President's jobs legislation. They are demanding that we pay attention to rebuilding our national infrastructure. They are demanding that we deal with a budget fairly and effectively. They are demanding fairness for the middle class and for the 99 percent of Americans who don't write million- dollar checks and hire expensive lobbyists and make huge campaign contributions. And yet here we are, back to irrelevant issue debates, the kind of thing people do when they have run out of ideas, when they have run out of excuses, when they have nothing to offer a middle class that is hurting and that has run out of patience. What happened to Republican pledges that we weren't going to do these kind of symbolic resolutions anymore? Symbolic because, after all, it changes nothing. The national motto remains the national motto, as much today and tomorrow as yesterday. What happened to Republican pledges that we were going to focus on the business of legislating? That was earlier this year. Make no mistake about it: Some have taken a decidedly divisive tone when discussing the national motto. Some have sought to imply that their political adversaries, including the President, are somehow less godly, or less patriotic, and have used the national motto as a political wedge to drive home that point, or to try to drive home that point. I think that kind of divisiveness undermines national unity which, especially in times like these, is very important. Rather than trying to one-up each other over who can be the better or more godly American, we should be working together to solve our very real problems. Mr. Speaker, let's get back to the work we were sent here to do. Let's stop playing the kind of social issue games that do nothing to move the Nation forward. The national motto is not in danger. No one here is suggesting that we get rid of it. It appears on our money. It appears in this Chamber above your head. It appears in the Capitol Visitor Center, all over the place. We don't need to go looking for imagined problems to fix. We've got enough real ones to worry about. This resolution is a waste of time, a waste of effort. And again, remember that this country is a country for all people--whether they are religious or not, whether they believe in God or not, whether they believe in one God or not. The First Amendment tells us we should make no law respecting establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This is not an establishment of religion, but simply restating this when no one has threatened it, when no one has questioned it. It is an exercise to tell people who may not believe in God: You don't really count; you're not really Americans. The establishment clause is there to protect religion from government, and government from religion, to separate the two. This resolution is here to say we don't want to separate the two. If someone was threatening the national motto then maybe it would be necessary. As it is, this is simply an exercise in saying we're more religious than the other people. We're more godly than the other people. And by the way, let's waste time and divert people's attention from the real issues that we're not dealing with, like unemployment. We shouldn't go looking for imagined problems to fix when we have enough real ones to worry about. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.