On the recordNovember 18, 2011
Today this House will vote on the momentous issue of amending the Constitution of the United States. All of us should understand that this is no symbolic vote. This is not a routine legislative act. We are asked to consider amending the most sacred document of a free people with a provision not contemplated by the Founders. The argument is propounded that the times demand it, there is no other choice, and that public opinion favors it. But as legislators, we must hold ourselves to a higher threshold to amend the Constitution. Is the proposal essential? Did the Founders fail to consider the issue that now must be addressed in and only in a constitutional framework? Is there no legislative remedy? What are the negative and foreseeable consequences of such a constitutional mandate? And importantly, we must remember that, but for one, all constitutional amendments are written in indelible ink. Desirous of a balanced budget, like everybody else, I must regrettably oppose the proposed amendment before us. It does not pass the higher constitutional threshold we must insist upon. We balanced the budget just a decade ago for 4 consecutive years without such an amendment. It was a matter of political will, fiscal discipline, and successful economic growth. There is no evidence that says potential cannot be resurrected. There is ample evidence, however, that this institution lacks the will and courage to undertake the policy changes necessary.…





