On the recordNovember 18, 2011
I am unalterably opposed to this proposed Constitutional amendment. President Obama stated it succinctly earlier this year: ``We won't need a constitutional amendment to do our job.'' He is right. President Clinton and Congress enjoyed balanced budgets in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. The proponents of this deeply flawed and highly dangerous tampering with our Constitution are dead wrong. All that is needed is the responsible exercise of choices about our budget. This proposed constitutional amendment fails on several counts: First and foremost, the proposed amendment does not pass the truth in labeling test. There is nothing in it that requires Congress, under any and all conditions, to pass a balanced budget. Under the voting procedures that are established, Congress can pass an unbalanced budget. Second, there is a dangerous tampering with the fundamental principle of majority rule in the House of Representatives. Today, the majority rules in votes on the budget. Under this proposed constitutional amendment, it will require a three-fifths (60%) vote of the House to pass a budget that is not in balance. The last thing the United States House of Representatives needs is to become more like the United States Senate in its rules for voting on legislation. We need coherence, not paralysis. We elect a President with a majority of the Electoral College.…





