Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleagues that this provision that they're talking about, the constitutional proposal that came out of the Judiciary Committee, would prohibit the Congress from balancing the budget at 13 percent of GDP expenditures. It would say you cannot make that choice. It would also say you have to reach a two- thirds hurdle to reduce the special interest tax breaks for the purpose of deficit reduction. So we keep hearing about this balanced budget amendment without any mention from our colleagues that they've inserted these two devices into the Constitution that would limit our ability to balance the budget in a balanced way. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, that's right. A few years ago during the Clinton administration when they took a balanced approach to deficit reduction, we did run surpluses. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it does not throw Americans a lifeline to write into the Constitution of the United States a provision that creates a preference for cutting Medicare and Social Security over cutting subsidies for oil companies. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that when Ronald Reagan was President, he raised the debt ceiling 17 times and specifically wrote to the Congress, saying that failure to pay our bills would jeopardize the creditworthiness and trustworthiness of the United States. Let's not make that mistake. President Reagan didn't want to make that mistake. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I still fail to see how it helps our kids and helps our seniors to write into the Constitution of the United States a bias in favor of cutting Medicare and cutting Social Security and cutting education before cutting special interest tax breaks. They would require only a majority to cut Social Security and Medicare, but two-thirds to get rid of special interest tax breaks for the purpose of reducing the deficit. That's why this is a question of priorities and a question of balance. How do we reduce the deficit? How do we get it into balance? I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Here's the question. As you know, this requires that we later pass a constitutional amendment. In fact, between now and August 2 we have to pass a constitutional amendment which, of course, requires two-thirds in the House. We'll find out by later this evening whether or not this bill will even get two-thirds in the House.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. The point is, this bill says you can't continue to pay the bills unless, between now and August 2 or whenever----

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. We pass a constitutional amendment with the provisions that you have in here. And so it will be a test today whether you can get the two-thirds to change the Constitution in the ways you're talking about.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to look at the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the impact of the Republican budget on senior citizens on Medicare. Essentially what they do is give seniors a raw deal compared to what Members of Congress get themselves, a raw deal in a big way. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, American families don't have the luxury of saying if we don't get things 100 percent our way, we won't pay our family bills. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the gentleman. If what you mean by protecting the status quo is meaning that I am opposed to actually manipulating the Constitution of the United States to make it harder to reduce special interest tax breaks, yes, I don't think we should change the Constitution that way. But if you mean we should----

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I agree with a lot of what the gentleman said. I would say that the President has put a plan on the table to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over about 10 years. It does it with $3 in spending cuts to $1 in revenue. That approach apparently was rejected by our colleagues. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I think what will defy the logic of the American people is why our Republican colleagues are going to write into the Constitution of the United States a provision that says a majority vote is needed to cut Medicare, a majority vote is needed to cut Social Security, a majority vote is needed to cut education, but you need two-thirds vote to cut subsidies for Big Oil companies, you need a two-thirds vote to get rid of subsidies for corporate jets. That is something that defies logic. You would also write into the Constitution a provision that says even if you balanced the budget at 19 percent of GDP or some other level so that we can meet the needs of Social Security and Medicare, you wouldn't be able to do that. You would constitutionally prohibit that kind of balanced budget, one that meets the needs of Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. That defies logic. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I understand $14 trillion and----

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, there are some things that we want to change, and there are some things we don't want to change. One of the things we don't want to change capriciously is the Constitution of the United States of America. I think many of us think it is a corruption to the Constitution to write in provisions that say you can only balance the budget the way the Republicans want to balance the budget; you can only do it by capping things at 18 percent even if that means deep cuts to Social Security and deep cuts to Medicare. We think it's a corruption of the Constitution to write into the founding document a provision that says it's easier to cut Medicare and Social Security than corporate tax breaks. That is in here. We keep hearing 49 out of 50 States. Forty-nine out of 50 States do not write those kind of provisions into their State Constitutions--a very few do--and for good reason: They're bad ideas, they're bad ideas now, and they will be bad ideas in the future which would constrain a Congress from balancing the budget in a way that reflects the will of the American people. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I'm happy to work with the gentleman on that enterprise, but that's very different than what you're talking about.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).