On the recordJuly 18, 2011
I thank the gentleman from Arizona. Just an observation here. I know our President said earlier today that we had--frankly, we don't need a constitutional amendment to do our jobs. He was referring, of course, to this debt limit debate and our insistence here in the House that we get some serious spending cuts in conjunction with that debt limit and come up with a plan to get our debt under control in the longer term. {time} 2000 My response to this idea that we don't need a constitutional amendment to do our jobs, first I look to the Constitution itself. Article V of the Constitution, the first phrase there is pretty clear. ``The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution.'' I would say it's our duty, when we deem it necessary, to go ahead and propound constitutional amendments to solve various problems here that we think need to be addressed within our Federal Government. First, we are duty-bound to put forward such a solution. Second, history bears out many examples where institutionally or culturally or historically the time has arisen for certain improvements in our way of government. So we've put forth some fine amendments like, say, the 19th Amendment, which gave women the guaranteed right to vote. I think that's a fine thing. I think it was important that Congress put forth amendments to guarantee women's right to vote so that we would do our job. It was necessary.…
