Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am heartbroken at the loss of Louise Slaughter, who was a dear friend and a beloved colleague. I first met Louise when she was elected to the New York State Assembly in 1982, and Eliot Engel and Louise Slaughter and I sat next to each other on the Assembly floor. She was only with us in the Assembly for 4 years and then she came here. I trailed her by another 6 years. She always was a champion of upstate New York, which caused people to do a double take when they heard her southern lilt. She was a champion of so many things before their time. She was a champion for women's rights. She was a passionate leader as co-chair of the Pro-Choice Caucus for many years. She protected the freedom of every woman to live, work, and start a family on her own terms. She was, as you have heard, the chairman at one point, the leading Democrat on the House Rules Committee. She was tough, determined, and compassionate, and she was a fighter. She was a fighter for the vulnerable and those without a voice. She was a microbiologist before she came into politics. And she left a lasting imprint of that with her Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act when we started to get the ability to deal with the genomics. She understood before anybody else the potentials for good and for bad, and she wrote and eventually got into law the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act so people wouldn't be discriminated against on the basis of their genetic traits. She wrote the STOCK Act, to prohibit Congress Members from trading on inside knowledge, which not every Member of Congress was thrilled with. But she was more than just her legislative accomplishments. She was a gracious and true friend who brought joy and laughter into every room, and she had a great sense of humor. When she ran for Congress the first time, she ran against an incumbent who, being in the minority party at that time, was in the habit of voting ``no'' on a lot of things. And she labeled him in the campaign as the ``Abominable No-Man.'' So she had a sense of humor which other people appreciated, and she will long be remembered for her sense of humor, for her decency, her humanity, and her tireless, fearless work for everyone. The Halls of the Capitol feel diminished without her. And I have realized over the last few weeks how lucky we all were to know her, to work with her, to call her a friend. We will always miss her, and this institution will be diminished by her absence.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I would note that most households do not balance their budgets. They borrow to buy the car, they borrow for the mortgage, and if they didn't do that, they wouldn't have a car or a mortgage. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Delaney).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the proposed balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Specifically, the resolution prohibits total outlays from exceeding total receipts for each fiscal year unless a three-fifths supermajority of the whole membership of each House of Congress votes to override the prohibition. The resolution also requires a three-fifths supermajority of each House in order to raise the Federal debt limit. There are only two conclusions one can reach about this legislation. Either it is fundamentally unserious--a facade designed to pretend that Republicans, on the heels of a massive Republican tax giveaway to corporations and the very rich that will increase the deficit by at least $1.5 trillion over the next decade, have a shred of credibility when it comes to claims of fiscal responsibility; or it is deadly serious--the first step toward their ultimate goal of slashing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and other critical elements of the social safety net--because you cannot have these enormous tax cuts and balance the budget without slashing spending programs that most Americans depend on. Understand the context in which we are considering this legislation. White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney recently admitted that the Republican tax windfall for the rich would cost the Federal Government $1.8 trillion in revenue over the next decade. In the wake of their budget-busting tax scam, House Republicans have the nerve to now seek to have us vote on this balanced budget amendment because they want to maintain the illusion that they care about fiscal responsibility. This is the height of hypocrisy. But if we assume that Republicans actually intend to pass this legislation, we should recognize the catastrophic consequences it would have on senior citizens or the disabled and on low-income people. That is because it would require radical spending cuts to achieve balance, with the principal targets being social safety net programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that millions of Americans depend on. I want to commend Mr. Goodlatte for his honesty. He has spent part of his speech talking about how we have to cut entitlements. What are the chief entitlements? Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. He talks about the lower percentage of expenditures that went for entitlement programs years ago before Medicare and Medicaid were enacted. Of course, we spend more on entitlements now that we have Medicare and Medicaid. But what is really causing deficits is not Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. It is the Republican tax cuts. In the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was elected, the total Federal national debt from George Washington through Jimmy Carter was under $800 billion. Then we had the Reagan tax cuts, and when George Bush left office 12 years later, the national debt had skyrocketed from $800 billion to $4.3 trillion. Then we had President Clinton, a Democratic Congress, and Newt Gingrich, who deserves some credit for it too, and we had 3 years of balanced budgets in the late 1990s. In 2000, the projection was for $5.65 trillion Federal surplus over the next 10 years. Alan Greenspan, testifying in favor of the Bush tax cuts, said that we have to pass these tax cuts because otherwise we will totally pay off the national debt, and that is a bad thing for various reasons. So we passed the Bush tax cuts--the Republicans did--and between that and funding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars without a tax increase off the credit card, we greatly increased the national debt again. So the Democrats have come in and cleaned up the messes that Republicans have left on the national debt by their huge tax cuts for the rich, and now they tell us we can't afford Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid because we must keep these tax cuts for the rich going. This legislation would also undermine the Federal Government's ability to respond to an economic crisis. When the Nation's economy weakens, incomes of individuals and businesses decrease because of job and business losses because of unemployment increasing, which in turn automatically results in reduced tax revenues. Meanwhile, spending on programs like unemployment insurance benefits and food stamps automatically increases as more people lack jobs and rely on unemployment benefits and food stamps to stay afloat. These programs also help overcome a downward spiral in the economy as they help stabilize the decline in consumer purchasing power and prevent a recession from turning into a depression. But by requiring a balanced budget, this constitutional amendment would effectively prohibit the government from drawing on these critical stabilizers. Although the resolution allows Congress to override the amendment's balanced budget mandate, it requires a nearly insurmountable three- fifths supermajority of the entire membership of the House in both Houses. By the time Congress could react to an economic crisis, it would have greatly delayed the stimulating effect of the stabilizers. This legislation would almost guarantee that a recession would become a depression. Meanwhile, millions of Americans who depend on these vital programs for food, shelter, and rent would go without assistance. In addition to making it harder to avoid an economic crisis, this resolution could actually help to precipitate one. By requiring a three-fifths supermajority vote of each House of Congress to raise the debt limit, H.J. Res. 2 increases the probability that the government will default on its obligations and cause the Nation to spiral into a financial and economic crisis. Beyond its devastating economic and social consequences, this resolution is also anti-democratic. To the extent that it requires a supermajority to undertake certain steps, such as waiving the balanced budget requirement or raising the debt limit, it shifts power away from the elected Representatives of a majority of the American people to a determined minority that can thwart the majority's will. Moreover, this bill inappropriately seeks to enshrine into the Constitution one particular economic view that would bind future generations and future Congresses that they elect. Whatever anyone may think about economic policy and government financing, those kinds of policies should be enacted as legislation that can be modified, amended, or repealed by future majorities, not enshrined in the Constitution to bind future generations to the opinions of this generation. That is fundamentally undemocratic and tyrannical. Finally, this resolution suffers from a fundamental flaw to its construction. There is no enforcement mechanism, and it is not clear what would happen if Congress ignored it and passed an unbalanced budget without the required supermajority. Presumably, it would somehow be resolved in the Federal courts. We would see judges ordering tax increases, or cuts in Social Security, or revising the transportation budget, you name it, without any legislative guidance, and on what basis they would make such decisions is anyone's guess. We should not have judges determining inherently political questions regarding budgetary decisions, upending the principle of separation of powers and generating massive litigation over questions ranging from who has the standing to sue, to what remedies a court can impose if it found a violation. This legislation is ill-conceived and deeply problematic. As I stated earlier, this resolution is either a farce--just for show and a few well-timed press releases--or it is a Trojan horse--an innocuous looking resolution that is really designed to enable the long-held Republican dream of dismantling Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, a goal they could never achieve politically but might achieve with a constitutional amendment on the balanced budget. Either way, this resolution is not worthy of this House. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 2, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, like Mr. Westerman, I rise today to recognize the heroic actions taken by 384th Bomb Group ball turret gunner Jack Coleman Cook of Hot Springs, Arkansas, during a World War II mission. Selflessly, Sergeant Cook gave his life to save the life of his fellow airmen, including my constituent, First Lieutenant Edward Field, a veteran and poet from Brooklyn, New York. On February 3, 1945, in a bombing mission over Berlin, Sergeant Cook showed us what true heroism looks like. After their B-17 bomber crashed into the North Sea, the crewmembers were forced to inflate two life rafts. Unfortunately, only one raft was able to fully inflate, leaving two men, Lieutenant Field and another crewmember, in the frigid water. After they had spent about 30 minutes in the water, Sergeant Cook gave up his spot in the raft for Lieutenant Field, who had become numb. Sergeant Cook then swam in the freezing water to the other raft, which was only partially inflated. Unfortunately, he died before a British vessel could come and rescue them. In his poem, ``World War II,'' Lieutenant Field honored the incredible sacrifice made by Sergeant Cook, recognizing that his survival is entwined with the spirit born from another hero's sacrifice. It is my distinct honor today to commemorate the American heroes who bravely served our country, in this case, Sergeant Jack Coleman Cook and First Lieutenant Edward Field.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, as we speak, thousands of young people from across the country are gathered outside to protest gun violence and to ask, to beseech, to demand that we take action. Mr. Speaker, we know what to do. We know that we ought to amend the law to provide effective background checks before people can purchase guns--not just background checks when you purchase from a licensed dealer, but background checks when you purchase a gun anyplace. We know that we ought to eliminate the 3-day limits so that, if they don't finish the background check within 3 days, you can't get your gun. We know that we should renew the assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 so you can't buy military killing machines in this country for civilian use. We know we ought to ban the high-capacity magazines that can convert guns into killing machines for large numbers of people that have no other purpose. You don't hunt a deer with a high-capacity magazine. We know we ought to ban bump stocks, and we know the other things we ought to do. But we are, too many of us, cowards. We quell before the National Rifle Association. We know the fact is that it is guns in the hands of people that kill people. Compared to every other country in the world, every other industrial country in the world, we stand out like a sore thumb. If you look at other statistics, this country--Great Britain, 75 people killed by guns in a year; another country, 142. No country is in more than three digits except the United States at 33,000. They tell it is mental health. The American people do not have mental health rates or lack of mental health 1,000 times or 10 times or 20 times or 40 times more than people in Western Europe or Japan or Australia. You cannot explain a difference of 75 or 150 to 33,000 by mental health. They tell us we should arm teachers, but we know that trained police officers hit their targets about a third of the time when they fire a gun and, in a gunfight, when the adrenaline is running, 13 percent. If we arm the teachers, we will have more teachers and more students killed. We have a President who has shown cowardice. He criticized Senator Toomey for being afraid of the NRA, and then he, after meeting with the NRA, backed down on everything he said he would do. Mr. Speaker, as I said, we know what to do. We are the only country in the world with the kind of gun murder rates that we have. The Republicans have opposed all the measures that we ought to take, but the Republicans have a choice. They can continue to be complicit in their repeated slaughter in our schools, in our churches, in our concert halls, and in our streets by continuing their cowardly subservience to the NRA, or they can act to protect us and our children. They know how to do it. They cannot have it both ways. Let's see what they do.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch), who is a sponsor of this legislation.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).