Jim Jordan

The unemployment rate has climbed above 8 percent, as we all know.

Yet, over two and a half years later, 1.7 million fewer Americans have jobs at a cost of $825 billion to taxpayers.

The President and others claimed the stimulus would create 3 to 4 million new jobs.

The administration assailed critics by claiming there was a consensus amongst economists that a massive spending bill was in the country's best interest.

The President worked with House and Senate Democrats to pass the stimulus as quickly as possible, promising that the unemployment rate would not go above 8 percent once the bill was passed.

In early 2009, President Obama sold the stimulus as a solution to the recession and skyrocketing unemployment.

We are supposed to be the neutral arbiters and judge and decide cases without regard to who it is who is before us or what their views are.

I think the American people are against raising taxes on the job creators out there.

If you are not spending those dollars to retrofit and retool your facility, you are probably using them some other way.

You may not, but my guess is small business owners, my guess is manufacturers probably do.

We have 9.2 percent unemployment now.

Let me be clear. You say there is going to be an increase in cost for energy.

So the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency admits that the rule changes will result in higher electricity costs.

These regulations have been collectively referred to as EPA's train wreck.

As I have said many times before in this subcommittee, one reason explaining the stagnant jobs numbers is the administration's stubborn determination to issue multiple onerous regulations all at once.

I am confident as of this morning that there were not 218 Republicans in support of the plan.

I would just add, 38 of those 50 States would have to agree to this before the Constitution would be amended. The gentleman can say, oh, we're going to write this in. The States get to decide this. That's the other part of this equation. I…

What defies logic is a $14 trillion debt and the Democrats' unwillingness to say let's do what everyone else has to do. Let's put a balanced budget requirement in the Constitution so that politicians have to do what they have to do in…

You know why it was rejected? Because it is the same old game. It is exactly the same old game. The cuts come in the outyears; the tax increases come now. And, oh, here we go again. And, yes, there are no specifics to it. It is the same…

Oh, that's really worked well over the last 40 years. I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

That's good to know. Reclaiming my time, so what you're saying is you guys actually think the balanced budget amendment is a good idea and something we need.

Reclaiming my time, is the gentleman from Maryland suggesting that if there are some changes made to the balanced budget amendment in our legislation that there would be 50 votes in the House to support it on your side?

I think it's going to get 218, and we'll send it to the Senate. At some point we may be able to get two-thirds. That's our whole goal. This bill needs 218.

If you knew all the things government was going to require you to do, would you have started?

The Fourth Circuit completely overturned every single ruling of the court.