“Balancing the Federal Budget: Examining Proposals for a Balanced Budget Amendment”

1[House Hearing, 119 Congress]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                     BALANCING THE FEDERAL BUDGET:5                  EXAMINING PROPOSALS FOR A BALANCED6                           BUDGET AMENDMENTS78=======================================================================910                                HEARING1112                               BEFORE THE1314                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND15                           LIMITED GOVERNMENT1617                                 OF THE1819                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY2021                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES2223                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2425                             FIRST SESSION26                               __________2728                      WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 202529                               __________3031                           Serial No. 119-4132                               __________3334         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary3536               [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3738               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov39                                 ______4041                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE424362-173                     WASHINGTON : 20264445                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY4647                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair4849DARRELL ISSA, California             JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking50ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                    Member51TOM McCLINTOCK, California           JERROLD NADLER, New York52THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin         ZOE LOFGREN, California53THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              STEVE COHEN, Tennessee54CHIP ROY, Texas                      HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,55SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin            Georgia56BEN CLINE, Virginia                  ERIC SWALWELL, California57LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  TED LIEU, California58JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey       PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington59TROY E. NEHLS, Texas                 J. LUIS CORREA, California60BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania61KEVIN KILEY, California              JOE NEGUSE, Colorado62HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming          LUCY McBATH, Georgia63LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina64WESLEY HUNT, Texas                   BECCA BALINT, Vermont65RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois66GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California67BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina           JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida68MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York69ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri       JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas70DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas71BRANDON GILL, Texas72MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington7374                                 ------7576        SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT7778                         CHIP ROY, Texas, Chair7980TOM McCLINTOCK, California           MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania,81THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky                  Ranking Member82HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             STEVE COHEN, Tennessee83WESLEY HUNT, Texas                   PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington84GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            JOE NEGUSE, Colorado85MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          BECCA BALINT, Vermont86ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri       SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California87BRANDON GILL, Texas                  DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York8889               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director90                ARTHUR EWENCZYK, Minority Staff Director9192                            C O N T E N T S9394                              ----------9596                      Wednesday, December 3, 20259798                           OPENING STATEMENTS99100                                                                   Page101102The Honorable Chip Roy, Chair of the Subcommittee on the103  Constitution and Limited Government from the State of Texas....     1104The Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking Member of the105  Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from106  the State of Pennsylvania......................................     3107The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary108  from the State of Ohio.........................................     6109The Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on110  the Judiciary from the State of Maryland.......................     6111112                               WITNESSES113114David M. Walker, Chair, Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation115  Oral Testimony.................................................     8116  Prepared Testimony.............................................    11117Kurt Couchman, Senior Fellow in Fiscal Policy, Americans for118  Prosperity119  Oral Testimony.................................................    22120  Prepared Testimony.............................................    24121Brittany Madni, Executive Vice President, Economic Policy122  Innovation Center123  Oral Testimony.................................................    34124  Prepared Testimony.............................................    36125Brendan Duke, Senior Director for Federal Fiscal Policy, Center126  for Budget and Policy Priorities127  Oral Testimony.................................................    46128  Prepared Testimony.............................................    48129130          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING131132All materials submitted by the Subcommittee on the Constitution133  and Limited Government, for the record.........................    82134135Materials submitted by the Honorable Becca Balint, a Member of136  the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government137  from the State of Vermont, for the record138    A tweet from Kurt Couchman regarding aluminum tariffs, Jun.139        4, 2025140    A tweet from Kurt Couchman regarding inflation and tariffs,141        May 30, 2024142    A tweet from Erick Erickson regarding tariffs, Nov. 4, 2025143An article entitled, ``How DOGE's Cuts to the IRS Threaten to144  Cost More Than DOGE Will Ever Save,'' Mar. 5, 2025, ProPublica,145  submitted by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking Member of146  the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government147  from the State of Pennsylvania, for the record148149                     BALANCING THE FEDERAL BUDGET:150                  EXAMINING PROPOSALS FOR A BALANCED151                           BUDGET AMENDMENT152153                              ----------154155                      Wednesday, December 3, 2025156157                        House of Representatives158159        Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government160161                       Committee on the Judiciary162163                             Washington, DC164165    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m., in166Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Chip Roy167[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.168    Present: Representatives Roy, Jordan, McClintock, Massie,169Hageman, Grothman, Harris, Onder, Gill, Scanlon, Raskin,170Jayapal, Neguse, Balint, and Kamlager-Dove.171    Also present: Representative Schmidt.172    Mr. Roy. The Subcommittee will come to order. Without173objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any174time.175    We welcome everyone to today's hearing on balancing the176Federal budget. I will now recognize myself for an opening177statement.178    Today, our national debt is at $38 trillion and counting.179In the time it took me to read that first sentence, the debt180increased by over $200,000. By this time tomorrow, we'll add $6181billion more. By any calculation, our Nation's debt is182staggering.183    For generations, politicians here in Washington have184shunned hard conversations about spending, choosing to max out185our national credit card and leaving the next generation to186foot the bill. Families across our Nation have to balance their187budgets, and there's no reason their elected leaders shouldn't188as well.189    Americans know that debt comes with strings attached. It's190no different for government. Every dollar we spend beyond our191means today is a dollar and change we must repay tomorrow. The192more America borrows, the more expensive every next borrowed193dollar becomes. Indeed, annual Federal spending on interest,194the price we pay for the last generation's fiscal indiscretion,195is now one of the largest line items we have in the budget. We196spend more on interest than we do on national defense. We spend197more on interest than we do on Medicare. Republicans and198Democrats will have different policy ideas and priorities, but199surely, we can agree that a budget hamstrung by huge interest200payments benefits nobody.201    Our fiscal trajectory is alarming and unsustainable. Make202no mistake, a reckoning will come. Indeed, America is already203long down the road to a debt crisis. Financial markets have204already grown--shown grave concerns about America's long-term205debt load. Higher than expected interest rates or other206challenges could trigger a debt spiral. It's happened to other207countries throughout history. It could happen to us, and208without changes, it will happen to us.209    When that day of reckoning comes, it will be ugly. Spending210cuts will be drastic and immediate, instead of targeted and211phased in over a longer period. Massive tax hikes will take212money out of your pocket, not to fund new services, but to pay213for services already rendered. It is a matter of when, not if,214unless we make changes now while we still can.215    That's why we're having a hearing today about a balanced216budget amendment. A balanced budget amendment would be a217possible tool to beat back a future fiscal crisis. It could218reduce the cost of living here and now.219    The enormous Federal debt load is already driving up220borrowing costs for all Americans--your mortgage, your car221payment, and your student loans. We saw the disastrous effects222of budget busting deficit spending during the catastrophic four223years of the previous administration.224    With the eager support of my Democratic colleagues in225Congress, the Biden-Harris Administration approved $4.7226trillion in new deficit spending, racking up $8.5 trillion in227new debt. Now, we have the worst inflation in 40 years.228    When Biden and Harris took office in January 2021,229inflation was at just 1.4 percent, and by the middle of their230term, it was over nine percent. Inflation is a tax on everyone,231but we all know who it hurts the most: The poor, the working232class, seniors on fixed incomes, and American families who saw233their expenses explode, but no similar increase in their234salaries.235    A balanced budget amendment is a long-debated tool that, if236properly structured, could limit Washington's inflationary237overspending and ensure that future Federal outlays are funded238with actual revenue, not debt and money printing. Indeed, a239balanced budget amendment could build on the work we started240with the One Big Beautiful Bill. We fought hard to ensure that241we kept our promises of fiscal discipline.242    A balanced budget amendment could force Congress to kick243the habit of spending money we don't have once and for all. I244hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join us245in calling for a full debate and full consideration of a246balanced budget amendment to get our fiscal house in order.247    Believe it or not, there's a long history of Democrats248supporting balanced budget amendments, including former249California Governor Jerry Brown. I hope that's still the case250today. Let's have a good and honest debate on various251proposals.252    Some proposals allow Congress to approve deficit spending253only by a supermajority vote and some delay the amendments'254effective date to allow for a softer landing. I hope that we'll255explore these finer points today with our expert panel.256    The concept of a balanced budget amendment is simple and257powerful. It's important that we get the details right. Many258States have requirements that they must balance their budgets.259The Federal Government should be similarly situated.260    I will note, and I know some of my colleagues on both sides261of the aisle will raise appropriately the question that, if you262have a balanced budget amendment with exceptions, will Congress263not drive a truck through those exceptions just as they264currently do every time we vote on a debt ceiling increase? I265say that to say that I'm not here to say that a balanced budget266amendment is a panacea for irresponsible Members of Congress on267both sides of the aisle that continue to blow our budget to268smithereens. We have to have responsibility in Congress, and a269balanced budget amendment will not make up for irresponsible270Members of Congress who will exploit any loophole to spend271money that we don't have and mortgage our children's future.272    The reason we're here to talk about a balanced budget273amendment is because something has to change. If we're going to274do something, structure it properly. If we're going to do275something, do something to actually put brakes on what Congress276does.277    That's what I hope we will debate today and have a full278conversation about, because we've been talking about a balanced279budget amendment for years, but every year, or every other280year, or every few years, we literally disregard the current281limit on our spending when we lift the debt ceiling, and we do282it with regularity and with impunity.283    Whatever we do today, whatever discussion we have today,284whatever debate we have on a balanced budget amendment, let's285recognize that we're $38 trillion in the hole with no end in286sight.287    We should have a full debate on this and I look forward to288having a discussion about a balanced budget amendment. With289that, I will yield to the Ranking Member for her opening290statement.291    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to our292witnesses for testifying today.293    It's an interesting topic and one that has, certainly, at294least superficial appeal, but the devil as always is in the295details.296    The decisions that Congress makes about the economy, about297taxes, spending and budgets, are or should be decisions about298our values, who we're fighting for, what kind of country we are299or want to be, and the future we're trying to create for our300children, which brings us to the topic of today's hearing--a301balanced budget constitutional amendment, which at least in the302proposals we've seen so far, seems to be a misguided proposal303about how to address the often competing values and interests304that have to be taken into account when crafting our national305budget.306    We all share the goal of developing smart, efficient fiscal307policies in budgets, but for decades, Republican Presidents and308Members of Congress have talked a big game about fiscal309responsibility while enacting policies that have exploded the310Federal deficit and the national debt.311    It wasn't that long ago--not generations, as the Chair312suggested--but only about 25 years when under the Clinton313Administration, the U.S. had a balanced budget for multiple314years, fueled in part by a combination of tax increases,315spending cuts, and reduced military spending. Since then, in316the early 2000s, and again during the first Trump317Administration, Republicans have handed the ultra-wealthy huge318tax breaks, eroding the Federal Government's revenue base and319threatening our ability to fund essential programs that320Americans rely on.321    Time and again these policies have failed to produce the322broader benefits for all Americans that the advocates of323trickled down economics have promised, and instead these324Republican policies have exploded the deficit, adding $10325trillion to the national debt.326    Despite this, this summer, Republicans once again doubled327down permanently extending the Trump tax giveaways from his328first administration, extending those giveaways to the wealthy329in their one big ugly bill, further expanding the deficit and330ballooning the national debt, as was just noted.331    Now, after voting for that policy, our Republican332colleagues are making a show of caring about fiscal333responsibility, but don't be fooled, today's hearing is part of334a decades-long orchestrated political effort to help335corporations and the wealthiest people avoid paying their fair336share. It's based on a theory that tries to convince people337that reckless tax giveaways to the ultra-wealthy somehow338stimulate investment and economic growth for everyone for the339greater good. That's a lie that's been debunked again and again340and again, for more than 50 years now, and one that's led to341sky-high income inequality and the enshrinement of a corporate342oligarchy in our society.343    These tax policies, these giveaways have fueled the344greatest rise in income inequality that our country has known,345at least since the robber baron days, resulting in a continuing346transfer of wealth from working and middle-class Americans to347the wealthiest among us. We need look no further than the fact348that the top one percent in our country pay a lower tax rate349than all other Americans. This pathological dedication to350trickle-down economics is outrageous. It betrays the values351this country should stand for and which our budget should352reflect.353    If we want to shrink the deficit and lower the Nation's354debt, we should be talking about a tax policy that gives relief355to working families and makes the rich and corporations pay356their fair share, rather than allowing them to reap even more357profits by imposing the costs of their business on the American358people, whether by paying substandard wages that force workers359to rely on food stamps or subsidized healthcare to survive, or360to force Americans to pick up the cost of industrial waste,361dangerous products, or unsafe working conditions.362    A tax policy that makes sure that everyone pays their fair363share isn't a radical idea and should be the starting point of364any serious discussion about bringing the two sides of the365budget equation--taxes and revenue on the one hand, spending,366including military spending, on the other. It takes a different367kind of politics than what we are hearing today, one that368believes that the purpose of government is to serve all369Americans, not just the wealthy and well-connected.370    The programs that our Republican colleagues have been only371too ready to slash in their big ugly bill and with the372political scam of a balanced budget amendment that they're373pushing here, these programs are critical to the health and374well-being of the American people.375    The majority of our yearly spending is mandatory, that is376funds not subject to congressional appropriation and which must377be paid, including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security,378veterans benefits, retirement programs for military service379members, and retired Federal employees. These are vital380programs that help our government keep its promises to the381American people. Less than half our budget goes to382discretionary spending, which is spending that Congress383appropriates every year, and half of that money goes to defense384spending.385    We can make sure our national debt is on a sustainable path386by investing wisely in the American people and taxing fairly.387We can work to build an economy that grows from the middle out,388not the top down. We can provide affordable healthcare and389childcare, affordable housing, and make sure that every child390gets a world-class public education, but that's not the focus391of today's hearing.392    Instead, the solution to the deficit problem they helped393create is to propose constitutional amendments that force394Congress to balance the budget on the backs of working and395middle-class families, forcing cuts to essential benefits like396Medicare and Social Security.397    House Republicans have introduced at least six different398proposed balanced budget amendments. Though they don't all399share the same features, they have the same common goal: To400continue to put their thumb on the scale to favor big business401and billionaires over working and middle-class people, seniors,402and our most vulnerable Americans.403    A balanced budget amendment would shackle Congress and404limit our flexibility to respond to changing economic405conditions or crises with appropriate fiscal and budgetary406policies.407    As the Chair mentioned, many of these proposals would408require a supermajority in Congress to raise revenue or raise409the debt limit but not to cut spending. The Framers of our410Constitution rejected the principle of requiring a411supermajority for basic government functions because they412believed it would shift power away from the American people's413popular will to a determined minority.414    Balanced budget proposals requiring a supermajority would415allow an extremist minority to hold our Nation's economy and416financial stability hostage. You only need to look at the chaos417of the current Republican majority in the House to see what418might be in store under such a proposed amendment. We've seen419political brinks-manship over the debt ceiling and government420funding. We've seen Speakers dethroned, and Federal budgets421that slash healthcare and food assistance for Americans, while422giving more handouts to billionaires and big business.423    A balanced budget amendment would only make things worse,424and this dysfunction would then be baked into our Constitution425and democracy. I don't think that's what the American people426want or need.427    The bottom line is we don't need to amend the Constitution428to balance the Federal budget. Our colleagues need to get their429heads out of the sand and be willing to look at the revenue430side of the equation.431    During the nineties, under a Democratic President and a432Republican-controlled Congress, the Federal Government ran433budget surpluses without a balanced budget amendment. Our434Republican colleagues control the House, the Senate, and the435White House; if they wanted to do this, they could. Instead,436they've chosen to make their No. 1 legislative priority this437year a trillion-dollar handout to their billionaire buddies.438    Our budget is not just numbers on a spreadsheet. It's the439choices we make to invest in our neighbors, our communities, to440provide opportunities for young people, to take care of the441elderly and the most vulnerable, and to invest in American442prosperity. If we really want a prosperous economy where443everyone can get ahead, we need to abandon the misguided444orthodoxy of trickle-down economics. Instead, we need to focus445on policies that support children, family, communities, and our446wider economy.447    We don't need a balanced budget. We just need Congress to448do the job the American people sent us to do.449    Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.450    Mr. Roy. I thank the Ranking Member.451    I will now recognize the Chair of the Full Committee, Mr.452Jordan, for his opening statement.453    Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be brief.454    The Ranking Member just said, and I quote, ``a balanced455budget amendment would shackle Congress.'' I think there are45630-some trillion reasons why that might not be a bad idea,457frankly, and that's what this is about. She also said that the458answer is to increase revenue, better known as raise taxes.459That seems crazy to me as well.460    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. I appreciate461the Chair for having this hearing. I yield back.462    Mr. Roy. I thank Chair Jordan. I will now recognize the463Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Raskin, for his464opening statement.465    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Chair Roy. Thanks to our witnesses466for joining us today.467    Our Republican colleagues have convened this hearing to468discuss a constitutional change to solve a problem that they469have created legislatively, which is gigantic runaway Federal470budget deficits.471    We don't need a constitutional amendment to legislatively472balance the budget. We just need some old-fashioned fiscal473discipline.474    In the 1990s, President Clinton worked with a Republican-475controlled Congress to eliminate the deficit, and they ran huge476surpluses without the aid of a contrived balanced budget477constitutional amendment or even rhetoric about a balanced478budget amendment. They just did it.479    Why can't Republicans who control the House of480Representatives, the U.S. Senate, and the White House do the481exact same thing today with control of every part of the482government? If they want to balance the budget, just do it.483    They could just take action on their own to make the hard484decisions. Instead, they say, no, the real problem is we need485to go out and get two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the486Senate and three-quarters of the States to do it, instead of487just passing it by a Majority in the House, in the Senate, and488in the White House. Obviously, they lack the political will or489the fiscal discipline to do it.490    They think that maybe they can distract everybody now with491this extremely stale and tired rhetoric about passing a492constitutional amendment. We can't even get reporters to come493and cover this charade anymore. They're practicing spectacular494fiscal irresponsibility and budget recklessness, and then try495to cover it up with the pathetic paper mache of a balanced496budget amendment.497    The problem of ballooning deficits returns whenever498Republicans enjoy complete control of the political branches.499This is one of the great ironies of our political rhetoric.500When they are in control, the budget deficits are sore. It's501the Democrats who always bring the deficits down.502    They pass giant giveaways for wealthy corporations and503billionaires. It was the policies of President George W. Bush504and the GOP Congress that squandered the record budget505surpluses of the Clinton years in the 1990s on tax cuts for the506wealthy, even as the country was waging the staggeringly507expensive no-end wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.508    In 2017, President Trump and a Republican Congress passed509the so-called Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, a law that increased the510Federal deficit by $1.9 trillion. This year they passed the511obscenely ugly profligate law which will add a jaw-dropping $4512trillion to the national debt because of its giveaways for513corporations with political insider influence and billionaires,514at the same time that they're stripping health insurance and515food assistance from tens of millions of Americans to offset516just a small part of the enormous cost of the tax breaks that517they cut for wealthy elites.518    We don't need to start finger painting on the Constitution519to accomplish what our colleagues in the Majority simply don't520have the political discipline and will to do.521    You wanted a balanced budget, present a balanced budget and522pass it. After voting for the most reckless recent increase in523Federal spending, it's just, to me, way too little or way too524late to have one more hearing on the idea of a balanced budget525constitutional amendment. Something, by the way, which no other526country in the world, or maybe it's a handful, but the vast527majority of countries in the world don't need this to run their528fiscal systems.529    I yield back to you, Mr. Chair.530    Mr. Roy. I thank Ranking Member Raskin.531    Without objection, all other opening statements will be532included in the record. We will now introduce today's533witnesses.534    The Honorable David M. Walker. Mr. Walker is the Chair of535the Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation, a nonprofit536organization that supports statutory and constitutional537approaches to fiscal responsibility. He previously served as538the Comptroller General of the United States, public trustee539for Social Security and Medicare, and is the Chair of the540Independent Audit Advisory Committee for the United Nations.541    Mr. Kurt Couchman. Mr. Couchman is a Senior Fellow in542fiscal policy at Americans for Prosperity, a nonprofit543organization that advocates for economic opportunity, fiscal544responsibility, and limited government. His work focuses on545solutions to Federal and State budget and government546challenges. He previously worked for the Committee for a547Responsible Federal Budget, as well as several other548nonprofits, and is a House staffer.549    Ms. Brittany Madni. Ms. Madni is the Executive Vice550President of the Economic Policy Innovation Center, a nonprofit551organization that advocates for policies that promote freedom552and prosperity. Prior to joining EPIC, she served in a variety553of roles with Members of the House and with the House Budget554Committee.555    Mr. Brendan Duke. Mr. Duke is the Senior Director for556Federal fiscal policy at the Center on Budget and Policy557Priorities, a nonprofit organization that advocates policies558that expand economic opportunity and health security. He559previously served as a Senior Policy Advisor on the National560Economic Council in the Biden-Harris Administration.561    We thank our witnesses for appearing today, and we'll begin562by swearing you in. Would you please rise and raise your right563hand.564    Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the565testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best566of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?567    Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in568the affirmative.569    Thank you. You're already seated.570    Please know that your written testimony will be entered571into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you572summarize your testimony in five minutes.573    A reminder that you have your microphones on before you574begin. With that, Mr. Walker, you may begin.575576                  STATEMENT OF DAVID M. WALKER577578    Mr. Walker. Chair Roy, Ranking Member Scanlon, the Members579of the Constitution Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity580to testify on this important issue today.581    Let me start at the outset, the Federal Government's582financial condition is much worse than advertised. Many people583focus on the level of Federal debt which now exceeds $38584trillion; however, the debt is just the tip of our financial585iceberg.586    Total Federal liabilities and unfunded obligations exceed587$125 trillion and are growing faster than the economy. Our588current level of debt to GDP is 123 percent, which is greater589than the end of World War II, but the difference is, is at the590end of World War II, it was coming down, now it's going up.591    Today, over 75 percent of the annual budget is on592autopilot, mandatory spending. We've written a blank check. In593addition, net interest is now the second largest and fastest594growing expense in the Federal budget for which we get nothing.595    In my view, we must adopt a fiscal responsibility596constitutional amendment if we want to restore and sustain597fiscal sanity over time. A constitutional amendment is the only598way to force Congress and the President to make the tough599choices needed on both sides of the ledger to reduce overall600debt burdens to a reasonable lower level of debt to GDP over601the next 10-15 years and have mechanisms in place to make sure602that we do not spin out of control again.603    There are several approaches to taking--to deal with that604constitutional need. Some advocate for a traditional balanced605budget approach by the ones--like the ones employed by the606States. Others advocate for a principle-based balanced budget607approach designed to achieve balance over a stated period of608time. I and others prefer a debt-to-GDP-based approach, which609is progrowth and does not dictate to the Congress how to solve610the numerator challenge, but it says you've got to solve it.611The latter two approaches have been used successfully by other612countries. Importantly, irrespective of the approach that is613employed, it must contain very limited exceptions and effective614enforcement mechanisms.615    As you know, there are two ways to achieve a constitutional616amendment under Article V of the Constitution. Two-thirds of617the House and Senate can pass an identical proposed approach,618and three-quarters of the States must ratify it. Alternatively,619two-thirds of the States can file an application for a620convention of States to propose one or more amendments to the621Constitution, and Article V says the Congress shall call the622convention. It is nondiscretionary, ministerial duty, and then623if the States can come up with an amendment, then three-624quarters of the States have to ratify it.625    The Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation, which I626Chair, discovered over three years ago that enough States had627filed applications for a convention dedicated solely to628proposing a fiscal responsibility amendment as far back as6291979. Enough applications existed for 25 years, and most630recently in 2016 and 2017, and yet Congress failed to call the631convention.632    Shockingly, the Congress never assigned responsibility to633any party to receive, store, and count the applications until634January 2015, when it was assigned to this Committee. To this635Committee's credit, it began steps to update its records636earlier this year. The National federalism Commission, which is637an official interstate governmental body, worked with the638Committee to bring its records up to date and they issued a639report on Constitution Day of this year, which confirms what640our foundation found, that there--enough applications existed,641Congress should have called a convention many, many years ago.642That was attended by Chair Jodey Arrington, Budget Committee643Chair; the Hon. Bruce Lee, who is with us here today, who's644head of the National federalism Commission, and I spoke at that645press briefing.646    Mr. Chair, with your permission, I would like to enter into647the record the National Federalism Commission's report and an648illustrative call resolution.649    Mr. Roy. Without objection.650    Mr. Walker. Thank you.651    The H.C.R. 15, which is sponsored by House Budget Committee652Chair Jodey Arrington, is designed to right this wrong and to653call the related limited convention. I expect the States will654sue, if the Congress fails to act within a reasonable period of655time. This issue would then have to be addressed by the Supreme656Court. If that happens, it would be the biggest federalism case657in the history of this great Nation.658    In closing, let me be clear, in my view, we must adopt a659constitutional amendment if we want to restore and sustain660fiscal sanity at the Federal level. If the Congress can achieve661the necessary support to pass a credible proposed amendment,662then it should do so in a timely manner. If not, Congress needs663to call a limited convention to propose a fiscal responsibility664amendment and allow the States to exercise their constitutional665right under Article V. Doing nothing is not an option.666    Thank you, Mr. Chair.667    [The prepared statement of Mr. Walker follows:]668669    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]670671    Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. Walker, for your testimony. Mr.672Couchman, you may begin.673674                   STATEMENT OF KURT COUCHMAN675676    Mr. Couchman. Chair Roy, Ranking Member Scanlon, and the677Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to discuss678balanced budget amendments to the Constitution and related679statutory upgrades. I am a Senior Fellow in fiscal policy at680Americans for Prosperity. We are the premier grassroots681advocacy organization transforming policy around the country to682empower every American to pursue their version of the American683Dream.684    Congress should be the Federal Government's premier685policymaking body. The best practices I'll discuss, including a686BBA, are neutral, practical tools to help Congress improve687budgeting, governance, and the exercise of legislative powers688generally.689    Weak Federal budgeting hurts us: Higher inflation and690interest rates, lower worker pay, polarized politics, and the691risks of debt crisis and default. The budget process is usually692just something to survive, not a robust and inclusive framework693for considering tradeoffs.694    Many countries and U.S. States have gotten into debt695trouble and got back out with policies to reduce borrowing and696with better governance, including debt constraints. Nearly all697U.S. States and prosperous countries now have balanced budget698rules.699    I'll discuss BBA design, statutory complements, and how the700House passed a BBA in 1995.701    Most constitutional provisions are broad principles.702Congress applies those principles to modern circumstances703through normal legislation. Any new provision should apply704indefinitely as well. Annual balance is the original sin of705most BBA proposals. Revenue varies a lot from year to year, so706locked-in spending, especially outlays to revenue, would mean707major uncertainty or, more likely, push Congress to waive the708rules a lot. Many BBAs try to compensate for annual balance but709create other problems.710    A simpler BBA, such as the principles-based BBA from711Representative Moran and Senator Husted, may attract the most712consensus. It would first require balance, quote, ``which may713occur over more than one year''; second, let two-thirds of714Congress approve emergency spending; and third, allow 10 years715to reach full or primary balance after ratification.716    Primary balance requires about half as much deficit717reduction as full balance. Implementing legislation for a718principles-based BBA could start with Representative Emmer and719then-Senator Braun's Responsible Budget Targets Act to support720stable, predictable, neutral and flexible policymaking.721    It would set up annual revenue-linked spending targets for722structural primary balance, balance in the budget, except723interest over the medium term. Emergency spending would usually724be offset over the following six years. The spending caps would725adjust for automatic stabilizers, revenue changes, and more.726Automatic enforcement would help Congress stay the course.727    Instead of the ineffective sequester model, however, a more728sophisticated incremental approach would be more reasonable,729politically sustainable, and binding. A real budget that730includes all the Committees and empowers all Members would help731Congress meet targets and do so much more. In addition to732appropriators diligently stewarding their 26 percent of733spending, 16 Committees responsible for direct spending and734revenue, including this one, could manage their portfolios as735well.736    Representative Blake Moore's Comprehensive Congressional737Budget Act is a roadmap to effective annual budgeting. Finally,738Representative Arrington and Panetta's Prevent Government739Shutdowns Act would support a more bottom-up Congress that can740more easily trim the fat.741    In 1995, the House of Representatives passed, and the742Senate nearly passed, an annual balanced BBA. The special rule743for the House floor set up a queen-of-the-hill competition. The744most popular BBA would be the text for final passage.745Substitute amendments began with more ideological versions and746finished with the consensus BBA that passed 300-132. Despite747flaws, it failed by just one vote in the Senate. Better BBAs748exist now, and reviving BBA competition on the House floor can749show the way forward. A well-crafted BBA would encourage sound750budgeting and would help Congress take up the additional tools751to strengthen fiscal democracy.752    Thank you for the opportunity to share these thoughts, and753I look forward to the discussion.754    [The prepared statement of Mr. Couchman follows:]755756    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]757758    Mr. Roy. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Couchman. Ms.759Madni, you may begin.760761                  STATEMENT OF BRITTANY MADNI762763    Ms. Madni. Chair Roy, Ranking Member Scanlon, the Members764of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify765today.766    It is a particular honor to be before this Subcommittee767given the critical moment in our Nation's conscience when we768are called on to address a growing fiscal crisis that threatens769our constitutional prerogatives.770    We are $38.4 trillion in debt. To put this into context,771our debt translates to approximately $288,000 per household772across America. More than 60 percent of this total occurred773over the past 18 years. We've added more debt during and since774the Obama Administration than over the prior 2.5 centuries,775including the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and two World776Wars. This is wildly unsustainable.777    Our Founding Fathers would be aghast. They just fought a778war because the Kingdom of Great Britain didn't know how to779balance its books, and mad King George wrongly thought that the780solution would be to raise taxes on the colonies. I'll spoil781the story for you; it didn't end well for the British or the782tea drinkers.783    What the Founding Fathers learned in a tangible way is that784debt is dangerous. It is dangerous because it removes the785ability of the government to adjust in times of need or respond786to an existential threat. It leads to squeezing the pocketbooks787of the people beyond reason. It is inflationary.788    It is dangerous, perhaps most interestingly to the789Subcommittee, because it implies that government has gotten so790large, so unwieldy, so involved in people's daily lives that791the only way to sustain it is to bankrupt future generations,792not only through excessive taxation, but through excessive793intervention in personal lives.794    I want to tie the Committee's constitutional jurisdiction795to its limited government jurisdiction by encouraging Members796to think holistically about a balanced budget amendment, not797just as a means of balancing the budget on paper or staving off798the debt crisis my colleague Dr. Paul Winfree warned us is799coming, but, most importantly, of making government spending800match the people's priorities. This is inherently American, and801it's inherently tied to the principles of limited government802and individual liberty.803    We all know the Federal budget is bloated. It's rife with804waste, fraud, and abuse. For example, GAO recently reported805that the Federal Government has made nearly $3 trillion in806improper payments since 2003. Over the past decade, we estimate807that Medicaid alone issued more than $1 trillion in improper808payments.809    Not all government waste--spending is blatantly corrupt,810wasteful, or fraudulent, though. Much of it is just not811necessary, which means it's not necessary for Congress to take812money from the American workers to fund.813    Is every dollar the Federal Government spends improving814individual liberty within the bounds of limited government?815This is a foundational budget question Madison reminds us to816consider in Federalist 41.817    According to the Federal Register, there are 444 Federal818agencies right now all funded by the taxpayer. Not only does819all that spending come out of Americans' paychecks, it often820works against them with regulations and distortionary821government subsidies. Given the purpose of our mission, balance822must be designed for the sake of the people, not simply as an823accounting mechanism. This year the Federal Government will824take $5.2 trillion in revenues from the American people and825spend $7 trillion, passing $1.9 trillion in debt to future826taxpayers.827    A major part of the problem is that mandatory spending has828grown from 33 percent of outlays in 1964 to 73 percent in 2024.829That means Congress does not actually review 73 percent of what830it spends each year. It's on autopilot and it's unacceptable.831    The cost of our debt is rising exponentially. Interest832payments this year will equal $1.22 trillion, or $9,200 per833household. Our $1.22 trillion interest payment is larger than834the GDP of most countries. It is about the size of Saudi835Arabia's entire economy. Our debt is out of control because836spending is beyond reason. A balanced budget amendment would837require lawmakers to regularly examine whether spending matches838Americans' priorities or not.839    Why do I believe a balanced budget amendment is necessary?840Because I was here a decade ago as a staffer, bright-eyed and841bushy-tailed, believing we could get this done. I was wrong.842    In early 2016, I was working for a Member of the843Subcommittee, Mr. McClintock. He charged me with working on a844memo on ways to restore budget discipline. I would like to read845to you from that memo that he published in 2016 and sent to his846colleagues. He said, ``The budget now before us''--remember,847this is 2016--``spends $1.07 trillion and balances in 2026, but848only if we summon the discipline to stick to the budget in849future years that has alluded us again this year.'' Maintaining850budget discipline becomes particularly crucial given the851deteriorating economic picture.852    Well, Congress certainly did not maintain budget853discipline. It's 2026, and our deficit is not zero dollars but854$2 trillion.855    A balanced budget amendment is an important safeguard for856Congress to consider building into the Constitution itself. You857should consider three main priorities when doing so: (1) Do not858abdicate your Article I powers; (2) remember that we have a859spending problem, not a revenues problem; and (3) it must have860an effective enforcement mechanism.861    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.862    [The prepared statement of Ms. Madni follows:]863864    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]865866    Mr. Roy. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Madni. Mr. Duke,867you may begin.868869                   STATEMENT OF BRENDAN DUKE870871    Mr. Duke. Thank you, Chair Roy, Ranking Member Scanlon, and872the Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Brendan Duke, and I873am the Senior Director for Federal Budget Policy at the Center874on Budget and Policy Priorities. CBPP is a nonpartisan research875and policy institute that advances Federal and State policies876to help build a Nation where everyone has the resources they877need to thrive and share the Nation's prosperity.878    Any constitutional amendment to require annual balanced879budgets would be highly ill-advised and a risky way to address880the Nation's long-term fiscal problems. It would threaten881significant economic harm while raising a host of problems for882Social Security and Medicare.883    Let me first begin with an overview of our fiscal outlook.884Analyses typically focus on government spending and revenue as885shares of the economy. In 2024, revenue was 17 percent of GDP,886which is around the same level as in 1984. Programmatic887spending, on the other hand, has grown 1.5 percentage points888since 1984. Social Security and Medicare are responsible for889more than 100 percent of the increase in spending because the890country has gotten older. That's nobody's fault. I'm sure891everyone on this Committee wishes they had the same knees or892back they did 40 years ago. Similarly, we all wish we had the893same demographics in ratio of working-age Americans to retirees894that we had 40 years ago, but we don't.895    The combination of population aging and basic arithmetic896means we will face a choice between raising revenue past the 17897percent of GDP levels set when the country was much younger or898making drastic cuts to programs. The past several months has899shown how much harm would be caused to vulnerable Americans and900how difficult it would be if the government relied solely on901massive spending cuts to balance the budget.902    The Trump administration has attempted, often illegally, to903close whole agencies, engaged in mass layoffs, and refused to904spend congressionally appropriated funds with little or no905savings to show for it. Similarly, the giant mega bill passed906this summer adds $3.4 trillion to the deficit as it extends tax907cuts tilted to the wealthy, despite cutting SNAP and Medicaid908by about 20 percent by 2034. This will cause millions of low-909income families to lose the ability to afford the high cost of910groceries or go to the doctor when they're sick, cuts that a911vast majority of the public staunchly opposes.912    The retirement of the baby boom was a predictable and913predicted development, but at the beginning of the 21st914century, we had a fiscal system that would deliver adequate915projected revenue to meet our needs. Rounds of unpaid-for tax916cuts ruined that.917    Take a look at CBO projections for 2025 that were made918right before most of the Bush tax cuts were made permanent in9192012, and before anyone even thought of the Trump tax cuts, and920compare them to the actual 2025 values. The 2025 deficit is921much higher than projected in 2012, despite programmatic922spending being lower than projected. The reason the deficit923rose is revenues came in far lower than projected as a result924of those unpaid-for tax cuts. Importantly, Social Security,925Medicare, and other health programs, such as Medicaid and926premium tax credits, also came in below CBO's 2012 projections.927    What all this ultimately shows is it's entirely possible to928meet our commitments to seniors while ensuring millions of low-929and moderate-income Americans have healthcare and can afford930food if we are willing to raise the revenue to do so.931    The most serious concern about a balanced budget amendment,932aside from any cuts to critical programs, is it would933exacerbate and prolong recessions. During economic downturns,934consumers and businesses spend less, which in turn causes935further job loss. The drop in tax collections and increases in936unemployment insurance and other benefits that occur937automatically cushion the blow to the overall economy and938individuals involved by keeping purchases of goods and services939from falling more.940    A constitutional balanced budget amendment, however,941effectively suspends this automatic stabilization. That would942launch a vicious spiral. A weak economy would lead to higher943deficits, forcing more spending cuts and tax heights, which944would weaken the economy further. It would also be945unconstitutional for Social Security and Medicare to draw down946their reserves to pay promised benefits without running a947surplus in the rest of the government, because that's still948deficit spending, spending money that was not collected in the949same year, so we would immediately likely face their funding950cliffs now instead of in the 2030s. In other words, a balanced951budget amendment would serve as an effective backdoor way to952immediately cut Social Security and Medicare benefits.953    Rather than spend time on an unworkable and economically954calamitous amendment to the Constitution, policymakers should955focus on policies that improve the fiscal trajectory while956meeting the public's wise priorities about what government957should do.958    Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.959    [The prepared statement of Mr. Duke follows:]960961    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]962963    Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. Duke.964    We will now proceed under the five-minute rule with965questions. I will now recognize the gentleman from California,966Mr. McClintock.967    Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chair.968    The Democrats spent quite a bit of time telling us the969debt's ballooned because of Republican tax cuts. Let me put970their concerns to rest. Three numbers tell you everything you971need to know about the Federal deficit: 46, 64, and 94.972    The Democrats blame excessive spend--46 percent, by the973way, is the percentage of increase in inflation population974combined over the last 10 years, 46 percent increase of975inflation and population. Sixty-four percent is the increase in976revenues in the same period. That's after the Trump tax cuts,977after the big beautiful bill; we're taking in 64 percent more978revenue than 10 years ago with only a 46 percent increase of979inflation and population.980    The third number is what's killing us, 94, that's the981increase in spending in the same period. The Democrats like to982blame Republicans for excessive spending, but the only983opposition I have ever heard from the Democrats on spending984issues is that we're not spending enough money fast enough.985    At the end of World War II, our Nation staggered under a986similar debt relative to GDP that we have today, as Mr. Walker987noted. We'd exhausted our resources then, fighting the most988terrible war in human history. The question occurs; how do we989get out of that? Well, not by tax increases, as the Democrats990propose. Quite the contrary.991    In Fiscal Year 1946, Democrat Harry Truman cut the Federal992budget from $85 billion a year down to $30 billion a year.993Almost two-thirds. He slashed Federal income tax rates. He994abolished the excess profits tax. He fired 10 million Federal995employees. It was called war demobilization. The Keynesians of996the time predicted a 25 percent unemployment rate and a second997great depression. Instead, we had the post-war economic boom.998    We already know how to fix the economy. The problem is999summoning the discipline to do so.1000    For the last eight sessions, I've introduced a1001constitutional amendment on this subject. It's 27 simple words:10021003        The U.S. Government may not increase its debt except for a1004        specific purpose by legislation adopted by three-fourths of the1005        membership of both Houses of Congress.10061007To me, that is the simplest way of addressing the issue and is1008essentially what Thomas Jefferson had suggested we needed in1009the Constitution at the time of its adoption.1010    Such an amendment taking effect 10 years from ratification1011would naturally require both a balanced budget and a prudent1012reserve to accommodate fluctuations of revenues and routine1013contingencies. It would trust that three-fourths of Congress1014will be able to recognize a genuine emergency when it sees one1015and that one-fourth of Congress will be strong enough to resist1016borrowing for lighter transient reasons. Whether it is this or1017some other mechanism, it seems to me that it is absolutely1018crucial.1019    Now, we have a modern-day example of this, and that's1020Switzerland. Switzerland adopted a debt break in its1021Constitution almost 25 years ago. Eighty-five percent of Swiss1022voters approved it. Today, Switzerland's total debt is 301023percent of GDP.1024    Mr. Walker, what is the percentage today in the United1025States?1026    Mr. Walker. Well, debt held by the public is about 1001027percent, but if you take the total debt, which includes the1028debt held by the trust funds it's 123 percent and rising.1029    Mr. McClintock. Yes.1030    Mr. Walker. As you properly pointed out, we were going down1031after World War II; we're now going up and we're not at war.1032    Mr. McClintock. Because we cut spending dramatically and we1033cut taxes, and that produced an economic expansion, as it did1034under Democrat John F. Kennedy, and as it did under Republican1035Ronald Reagan and Republican Donald Trump.1036    Anyway, 100 percent. Just debt held by the public, 1001037percent; Switzerland is 30 percent. Switzerland's running a1038slight budget surplus this year, I understand.1039    What are we to take away from this experience?1040    Mr. Walker. Well, Switzerland and certain other countries,1041including Germany and Sweden, have recognized that they need a1042constitutional constraint to maintain fiscal sanity.1043    I might note, the debt ceiling is a bad joke. It's done1044nothing to be able to constrain the growth of government or1045mounting debt burdens. It's a political football. Statutory1046approaches to try to be able to bring fiscal discipline,1047whether it be Gramm-Rudman or anything else, have not stood the1048test of time.1049    The only thing that can bind current and future Congresses1050and Presidents is a constitutional amendment. Remember what1051Washington said, among other things, ``avoid excessive debt.''1052We have not--we have not heeded his warning.1053    Mr. McClintock. Thank you.1054    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from California. I'll now1055recognize the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr.1056Raskin.1057    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.1058    Yes, it was Democrat Harry Truman who did all that, who1059made the requisite cuts in Federal spending after World War II,1060and it was Democrat Bill Clinton who gave us record surpluses1061in the 1990s. All this is possible with the proper political1062focus and discipline.1063    Mr. Duke, say you've got a lawless President who wages war1064without a congressional declaration of war, takes emoluments1065from foreign kings, princes, and governments without1066congressional consent, impounds money appropriated by Congress1067for certain purposes and uses them illegally for other1068unauthorized purposes. Is there anything in the proposals for a1069balanced budget constitutional amendment that would prevent a1070reckless President who disregards the Constitution from1071bulldozing the budget and just going right through those1072barriers and spending us into oblivion?1073    Mr. Duke. Not that I have seen.1074    Mr. Raskin. If there's not any real constitutional1075guardrail there, it seems to me like this is symbolic politics,1076a kind of window dressing to cover up the fact that people just1077have not had the political discipline and will to balance the1078budget.1079    Is it true that, as in the case raised by the gentleman1080from California with President Truman and President Clinton, is1081it true that the budget deficits have gone down more under1082Democratic Presidents and the budget has been balanced more1083often than it has been with Republican Presidents?1084    Mr. Duke. Certainly, in the post-war period.1085    Mr. Raskin. OK. What is it that we should be doing in to1086get our friends focused on actually balancing the budget and1087not adding trillions to the debt, as President Trump did in his1088first administration and as he's been doing again with the1089massive tax breaks to the wealthy?1090    Mr. Duke. The first best would--to get into a time machine1091and not do the bill that they passed last July. That would be1092the first best. Second best would be to repealing it and1093starting from scratch. That would be where we could start.1094    One idea, for example, there was that you could cut the1095cost of the expiring tax cuts in half by just not extending1096them for households making over $400,000. Then, you could1097offset that cost, the $2 trillion remaining cost for the tax1098cuts under $400,000, by raising taxes on the wealthy and1099corporations. That's just one of the parts for dealing with the1100fiscal cliff that basically President Trump and Republican1101Congress set up in 2017.1102    Mr. Raskin. Well, what do you make of the notion that1103President Trump's tariffs--which may be struck down as1104unconstitutional, of course--but that in the meantime they will1105make up the problems in the Federal budget deficit for us, they1106will reduce the deficit? Does that make sense?1107    Mr. Duke. Yes. They're big and they are raising real money.1108The CBO thinks they raised about $2.5 trillion, which is less1109than the $3.4 trillion cost of One Big Beautiful Bill. I'd note1110that the sense to which Donald Trump has done any sort of work1111on deficit reduction, the cuts to SNAP and Medicaid, as large1112as they are, are smaller than the increases in tariffs, which1113shows that even President Trump is kind of admitting that1114revenue is the solution here. We should just have smarter taxes1115than ones that cause people to pay more at Costco and Walmart1116and ask the wealthy to pay their fair share instead of doing1117illegal tariffs.1118    Mr. Raskin. Yes. What do you think about the notion that we1119should have an Article V constitutional convention to pass this1120balanced budget amendment?1121    Mr. Duke. You put it best yourself, why go through that1122rigmarole, and why can't Congress and the President just do1123that right now. They have the power to do it.1124    Mr. Raskin. Aren't there special dangers with causing--or1125calling an Article V constitutional convention? Of course, we1126haven't had an Article V convention. We've always done it by a1127two-thirds vote in the House and the Senate and three-quarters1128of the States ratifying. Calling a constitutional convention,1129like the one we had in Philadelphia, would lead to potentially1130every other manner of amendment that our colleagues have1131favored, including an anticon-stitutional choice human life1132amendment, a school prayer amendment, a flag desecration1133amendment, and so on.1134    Would there be any way to control it once we're back in the1135Rawlsian original position of a constitutional convention?1136    Mr. Duke. No. I think it's a whole bag of worms.1137    Mr. Raskin. Well, thank you for that. I yield back to you,1138Mr. Chair.1139    Mr. Roy. I thank Ranking Member Raskin. I'll now recognize1140the gentleman from Kentucky for five minutes.1141    Mr. Massie. I'm all for balanced budgets. I built this debt1142badge, and I wear it to try and instill at least some sense of1143urgency among my colleagues. I gave one to every freshman1144Member of Congress, and the only Member who wears one is a1145Democrat because he wants to show how much the debt's going up1146under the Republicans, and he has a fair point.1147    The balanced budget amendment is one of those things that1148sounds good on the surface, but it's the exceptions that are1149written into it that get you. In fact, I voted against the1150balanced budget amendment when it came to the floor several1151years ago. I'll tell you why. It said that if Congress, if both1152Chambers of Congress voted it with at least 60 percent of the1153Members, they can undo the balanced budget amendment. That was1154the exception. Well, just a few legislative days prior to1155voting on the balanced budget amendment, we had just passed an1156omnibus with over 60 percent of the House voting for it and1157obviously over 60 percent of the Senate voting for it.1158    When Mr. Biggs, our colleague on the Judiciary Committee,1159offered a balanced budget amendment, he suggested the threshold1160should be two-thirds. I went back and looked from 2016 until11612026 at all the CRs that have passed the House and the Senate1162and all the omnibus bills that have passed the House and the1163Senate, and it turns out that 11 of the 16 CRs passed with more1164than two-thirds vote in the House, and 14 of the 16 CRs passed1165with more than two-thirds vote in the Senate. The results are1166similar for the omnibus bills. I believe my colleague here, Mr.1167McClintock, has suggested a three-quarters threshold.1168    What does a three-quarters threshold get you? Well, in11692024, the CR passed with 77 percent of the House, and 771170percent of the House in the next CR, 72 percent of the House,117174 percent of the House, 78 percent of the House, and, finally,1172in 2025, not too long ago here, the American Relief Act, the1173second CR of 2025, 84 percent of the House voted for that. That1174sucker wasn't balanced. What about in the Senate? Eighty-five1175percent. There's literally almost no threshold you could put in1176there that they couldn't override and haven't overridden1177already.1178    Mr. Walker, do you want to address that?1179    Mr. Walker. Yes. Thank you, sir. First, you have to define1180what type of unexpected events can cause there to be a1181potential exception to the rule, and then you have to have a1182high enough threshold combined with those unexpected events to1183be able to limit it. In addition to that, you have to say it's1184for year by year. In other words, you don't just get a pass;1185it's year by year.1186    With regard to the convention, this is not a constitutional1187convention. The Federalist papers make it very clear that the1188Founders intended there to be Article V limited conventions.1189    There are several safeguards to deal with your question,1190Mr. Raskin. First, a majority of the applications back in 19791191and today are fiscal responsibility only. There's State1192delegate legislation--1193    Mr. Massie. Let me followup, Mr. Walker--1194    Mr. Walker. Yes, sir. Go.1195    Mr. Massie. --on something you said, do you have to specify1196the exemptions, and one of those is war.1197    Mr. Massie. I have tongue-in-cheek remarked that at least1198this would get Congress to declare wars again because there is1199an exception if you declare a war. This gives me some concern1200because I have watched them play budget gimmicks here with1201something called Overseas Contingency Operation (OCO). It is1202supposed to be for emergencies or for things that came up--1203contingencies, not expected--but they have used it to fund the1204basic defense of the United States to replenish stockpiles and1205whatnot.1206    Forgive me if I am very suspicious of specific exemptions1207because I have seen those--they were statutory, not1208constitutional--but I have seen them abused here in the House1209of Representatives. The only thing that really works is you1210have got to elect people who are serious about balancing the1211budget. The result of the Big Beautiful Bill and the CR and1212everything that has passed since then is that this year, we1213have increased spending $200 billion, and next year, we will1214increase spending over more than $200 billion.1215    My colleagues are--my Republican colleagues and especially1216my Democrat colleagues--but this whole place is unserious about1217balancing the budget, and the reason--and if you give them any1218exemption, they will use it. The reason, honestly, they are not1219that serious about it is because they can get reelected every1220time by telling people they can cut their taxes and increase1221spending and things are going to turn out fine. Well, that is1222not the case.1223    With that, I see my time has expired.1224    Mr. Roy. With that, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky,1225and I recognize the gentlelady from Washington.1226    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.1227    I love following Thomas Massie because he is very1228consistent, and I appreciate that. Because we can disagree on a1229whole host of things, but if you are consistent, it makes1230sense.1231    I just find it really interesting that we are spending our1232time on the Constitution Subcommittee talking about a balanced1233budget amendment right after everyone on the other side except1234for Mr. Massie voted for a bill that dramatically increased the1235national debt. There are lots of other things that this1236Committee should be working on rather than this.1237    The last time--the Ranking Member of the Full Committee1238said this. The last time there was a balanced budget was in the12391980s under a Democratic President, Bill Clinton, and that was1240achieved both by increasing taxes and revenue--taxes on the1241wealthiest and revenue--and decreasing spending and cutting1242defense spending. This last big, beautiful betrayal bill1243actually did the opposite. It reduced revenue by giving massive1244tax breaks to billionaires and corporations, and it increased1245defense spending, and it did all of that on the backs of1246cutting healthcare for tens of millions of Americans.1247    When we talk about this issue, we should remember that, in1248his first term, President Trump followed Republican Presidents1249like George W. Bush. He increased defense spending. He passed1250steep tax cuts for billionaires and corporations under his 20171251tax scam. In fact, in 2023, Americans For Tax Fairness reported1252that the richest 748 Americans' wealth topped a record-high $51253trillion, up 77 percent since those tax cuts were passed, and1254that the debt caused by those Trump tax cuts were then used by1255Republicans as an excuse to cut services.1256    Then this year, instead of letting those tax cuts for the1257wealthiest expire, what did Republicans do? They made those tax1258cuts permanent and then added some more in. That gave the1259wealthiest Americans another five trillion in tax giveaways. As1260I mentioned, defense spending went up by another $150 billion,1261more enormous amounts of money poured into the Department of1262Homeland Security to send all these masked ICE agents into our1263streets to kidnap and deport people and terrorize communities1264and give massive profits to for-profit detention centers.1265    The big, bad betrayal bill is what I call it, betrayal of1266the American people, betrayal of working families--increased1267the deficit by $3.4 trillion over the next 10 years on the1268backs of working families while slashing $1.1 trillion for1269Medicaid, food assistance, other critical health programs. Now,1270Republicans have refused to extend the ACA tax credits so 221271million Americans can afford health insurance, even though1272doing so would cost less than four percent of the cost of the1273tax cuts for the wealthiest. Just make this make sense for me.1274    I am going to turn to you, Mr. Duke. Deficits are made up1275of two parts, right? Is that correct?1276    Mr. Duke. That is correct.1277    Ms. Jayapal. Revenues and expenses?1278    Mr. Duke. You got them.1279    Ms. Jayapal. OK. I just wanted to make sure. Can a balanced1280budget be achieved by the Federal Government just by decreasing1281spending?1282    Mr. Duke. It could be done mathematically by dramatically1283increasing poverty, causing millions of Americans to lose1284health insurance and not be able to afford groceries. It is1285mathematically possible, but it is very unwise.1286    Ms. Jayapal. To Mr. Massie's point, do we need a1287constitutional amendment to create a balanced budget?1288    Mr. Duke. Bill Clinton certainly didn't.1289    Ms. Jayapal. Bill Clinton didn't. Yet, Republicans have1290done the exact opposite. As I mentioned, they increased the1291deficit, handed out tax breaks, and now they want--this is1292really rich--a supermajority vote to increase revenue or raise1293the debt limit but not a supermajority vote to decrease revenue1294or lower the debt limit.1295    What effect would this one-way ratchet have on the payment1296of Federal benefits like Social Security?1297    Mr. Duke. Sure. Anytime a Congress comes that wants to cut1298spending, they can do it, and any Congress that then tries to1299reverse it by raising revenue would not be able to do it. It1300would be a one-way ratchet where benefits, services, and1301eventually Social Security and Medicare find themselves on the1302chopping block because there is just not much room left.1303    Ms. Jayapal. People feel like this is a rigged economy1304because it is a rigged economy. It is rigged for the1305wealthiest, and people across the country are seeing this now.1306That is why Donald Trump's poll ratings are as low as they have1307ever been in this term and almost as low as right after January13086th. Because people can't afford health insurance. They can't1309afford basic food. They can't afford to live. Meanwhile, a very1310small group of people at the top are just having it big, and1311this is just another way to continue that cycle. I oppose it,1312and I yield back.1313    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady from Washington.1314    I now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina.1315    Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to all of you1316on the panel for your expertise and for being a part of this1317hearing, a very, very important issue that I think a lot of us1318have talked about and shared for a long time.1319    We all know that unsustainable debt has placed this country1320on a collision course with financial disaster and that a1321balanced budget amendment might save us from that fate, and I1322would really like to hear our witnesses on what factors they1323think make a strong balanced budget amendment that does not1324bear any unintended consequences. As a freshman here, I have1325had the opportunity to look at six different constitutional1326amendments that have been introduced in this 119th Congress,1327and I want to start by addressing the issue of when a balanced1328budget ought to take effect.1329    Mr. Couchman, what are the pros of a balanced budget1330amendment taking effect for the budget year immediately after1331it is ratified?1332    Mr. Couchman. To require the balance of the budget1333immediately would require relatively large changes in spending1334and revenue policies. It would not give people as much time to1335adapt and plan, which is why I recommend 10 years--a glide path1336of 10 years after ratification, which would probably take 2-31337years.1338    Mr. Harris. OK. Because I understand, of the six that have1339been introduced, only one gives Congress time to pass the1340balanced budget and the other five require Congress to pass the1341balanced budget the Fiscal Year after the amendment is adopted.1342Some balanced budget amendments have provisions that allow1343deficit spending during a declared war, national security1344threats, or natural disasters.1345    Mr. Couchman, should a balanced budget amendment contain1346these exceptions in your opinion?1347    Mr. Couchman. Yes, sir. Every balanced budget requirement1348or debt limit requirement must have a safety valve. There are1349emergencies of many types that come up. Two-thirds is the1350standard supermajority for congressional action in the1351Constitution. Three-fourths does apply, but that is only in the1352context of ratifying proposed amendments.1353    Mr. Harris. OK. Mr. Walker, what about you?1354    Mr. Walker. Clearly, it cannot be effective immediately. In1355my view, I prefer a debt-to-GDP approach where you do two1356things:1357    (1) You set a credit card limit, which is constitutional.1358Not the debt ceiling, which is a bad joke.1359    (2) You have a target of lower debt-to-GDP than today1360because we are already too high, 10-15 years out, with specific1361targets or triggers to be able to make sure that we get there.1362Doing it immediately makes no sense. We need to really have a1363phased-in approach.1364    Mr. Harris. OK. We all know--and this has already been1365alluded to today--that there are two ways to balance the1366budget: Raise taxes or cut spending.1367    Ms. Madni, could you explain--you made a great point in1368your opening comments about the spending and not revenue as a1369problem that needs to be addressed. Can you expand on that a1370little more?1371    Ms. Madni. Sure. Absolutely, sir. That the answer is quite1372simple. When we are looking at the math, we know that revenues1373are not catching up to where we are in terms of outlays. To me,1374that indicates that the Federal Government is spending more1375than we bring in.1376    Every constituent that you have sits around their dinner1377table and is expected to balance their budget and figure out1378what they can actually spend within their means. We are quite1379simply not doing that as a country, and the result of that is1380that our deficit is ballooning. We are increasing our debt year1381after year.1382    There are several instances of rampant waste that I think1383that the average American would be astounded to learn about.1384For example, there are several billion dollars' worth of waste1385going to things like green energy projects in Honduras, climate1386resilience in Honduras. It is about $24 million. Simple items1387like this actually do stack up.1388    Then, when you start to think about the last major welfare1389reform--which your colleague, Ms. Jayapal, pointed out was a1390significant part of the President's 1996 balance--what you see1391there is that he actually did also contribute significant1392energy to reducing spending. It has to be a part of the1393picture. Then, it was about $100 billion in today's dollars1394worth of spending cuts to welfare. Now, in the One Big1395Beautiful Bill Act, about a trillion dollars of that is what we1396are seeing.1397    It is really important to note that Medicaid is still1398growing after the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. There is a1399significant impact. In fact, it grew 31 percent even after the1400reforms in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It is not that1401revenues are the problem. It is that the spending trajectory of1402the country is continuing to go far beyond the pace of what we1403could ever bring in.1404    Mr. Harris. Gotcha. Well, thank you very much. We saw some1405of that in the first few months of this administration when1406DOGE began to do its work, where the American public was rising1407up and saying that these cuts were something that needed to1408happen.1409    With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.1410    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. I now1411recognize the gentleman from Colorado.1412    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks for convening this1413hearing. Thank you to all the witnesses for your testimony,1414both written and your answers to the questions that have been1415propounded so far.1416    Ms. Madni, I wasn't planning on asking this question of1417you, but I want to followup on the comment that you made just1418recently, and your summation focused on spending. Every1419academic, every economist that I have come across in the last1420six months have all agreed that the Republican tax bill, the1421so-called Big Beautiful Bill, increased the deficit. I assume1422you don't dispute that.1423    Actually, let me read this to you, and then you can answer.1424The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget--right--has1425estimated that this bill will add $2.4 trillion to primary1426deficits over the next decade and $3 trillion to the deficit,1427including interest. Do you contest that?1428    Ms. Madni. Thank you for your question, sir. I actually1429reject the premise of this question because, when you are1430adding to the deficit, you also have to think about what the1431mechanisms is doing so. As I mentioned in my opening statement,1432it is not just about balance on paper. This is not a simple1433accounting mechanism. You also have to take into account the1434economic impact of the choices Congress is making.1435    Mr. Neguse. Sure. I understand that argument. Republicans1436on the dais here have made that argument.1437    What you are essentially saying is that Elon Musk, the1438Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Mr. Massie, any1439Republican critics in good faith of this bill are wrong, that1440this calculation that the Committee for a Responsible Federal1441Budget has delineated and produced is inaccurate and incorrect.1442I don't know how you can make that argument. I suspect that1443your colleagues here sitting alongside you would not make that1444argument, but maybe I am wrong.1445    Mr. Couchman, I have seen some of your material previously1446in which you have amplified the Committee for a Responsible1447Federal Budget. I don't think you have taken issue with them in1448the past. Do you contest their analysis here? They are wrong?1449    Mr. Couchman. I worked at the Committee for a Responsible1450Budget before this, and there are times that I agree with them1451and sometimes I disagree.1452    Mr. Neguse. I know. Sure.1453    Mr. Couchman. On this matter, it really comes down to how1454you think about the statutory baseline and whether you think1455that was realistic, and as we saw from the bond market, the1456public, and policymakers, that was not an accurate reflection1457of where folks expected revenue policy to be.1458    Mr. Neguse. How far off are they? Is it $2.4 trillion over1459the next decade? You are saying that this bill didn't1460increase--will not increase the deficit at all?1461    Mr. Couchman. Relative to the statutory baseline, yes, but1462relative to what the bond markets and policymakers were1463projecting, no. It actually decreased deficits. Vice President1464Harris proposed extending most of these tax provisions as well1465to prevent the largest tax increase on the American people in1466history.1467    Mr. Neguse. Well, again, that it is rich, in my view, for1468organizations who predicate their existence on making the case1469for deficit-neutral policies and for decreasing the debt, so on1470and so forth, to enthusiastically endorse a bill in which a1471variety of experts, including conservative ones, all attest1472that that particular legislation actually increases the1473deficit. It is quite convenient now for Americans for1474Prosperity, just by way of example, to now conclude that the1475Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is wrong and that,1476in the case of Trump's so-called Big Beautiful Bill, no, you1477have called it incorrectly. This in fact decreases the deficit.1478That argument is disingenuous, frankly, sir.1479    In any event, you are entitled to your opinion, obviously,1480but I concur with Mr. Massie, and I applaud Mr. Massie for1481having the courage among Republicans to actually make an1482intellectually honest argument and to stand by his principles1483and vote against the bill because of what it will do to the1484deficit. Again, that is my view.1485    Mr. Couchman. Sound budgeting is important to American1486prosperity. There is no question about it.1487    Mr. Neguse. What was that?1488    Mr. Couchman. Sound budgeting is important to American1489prosperity.1490    Mr. Neguse. It doesn't feel like it. If it was important to1491you all, then you would have opposed this bill. You would have1492said, you know what, we ought to make the case for an extension1493of these various different tax credits and tax breaks that were1494embedded in that bill, but supporting the bill wholesale, your1495colleagues at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget--1496your former colleagues, I should say--I suspect they are very1497disappointed because that they put forward a very honest1498treatise on this bill's impact.1499    I can see that your colleague here, Mr. Walker, would like1500to jump in, so feel free.1501    Mr. Walker. I used to be on the board for Committee for a1502Responsible Federal Budget.1503    Mr. Neguse. Sure.1504    Mr. Walker. It all depends on what assumptions you use, but1505there are more people believe that it added to the deficit than1506not, OK?1507    Mr. Neguse. Correct.1508    Mr. Walker. Let me just note that things--1509    Mr. Neguse. I appreciate you conceding reality, sir.1510    Mr. Walker. No, that is right.1511    Mr. Neguse. That is all I was asking of the other two1512witnesses.1513    Mr. Walker. One last thing. Things have been out of control1514since 2002--1515    Mr. Neguse. Sure.1516    Mr. Walker. --and both parties have controlled the Congress1517since 2002, and both parties have had Presidents since 2002.1518    Mr. Neguse. I hear you.1519    Mr. Walker. This is a bipartisan problem.1520    Mr. Neguse. Here is the difference, Mr. Walker. I1521appreciate that candor. I appreciated the Chair's indulgence1522for just a few seconds. Because I completely appreciate that1523point. You, sir, have spent a great deal of time in your career1524making the case that both parties have to ultimately help bring1525their fiscal house in order.1526    The issue I take umbrage with are witnesses who advocate1527solely on the basis that Democrats are responsible, and they do1528that simultaneous to supporting a bill that increases the1529deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next decade so that my1530daughter and future generations to come are saddled with debt1531for the next 25 years.1532    In any event, I digress. Thank you, Mr. Chair.1533    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from Colorado.1534    I now recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Onder.1535    Mr. Onder. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the1536witnesses for being here today.1537    Republicans have warned for years about the dangers of1538unchecked Federal spending, but because of the Biden1539Administration's unprecedented spending spree and the1540Democrats' refusal to return spending to pre-COVID levels even1541after adjusting for inflation, we are now at a defining1542crossroad.1543    This first chart shows a simple overview of our Federal1544debt-to-GDP ratio. Within just a few years, debt held by the1545public will surpass every previous record in our Nation's1546history, even the levels reached during World War II. Here we1547are. We are up here at World War II levels of debt-to-GDP1548ratio.1549    The second chart breaks down the annual Federal spending by1550category. One change that I believe should alarm every American1551is down here in the orange at about 6, 7 o'clock--is the slice1552of our Federal budget that is devoted to paying interest on our1553debt. We are now at 13 percent. At $881 billion--which it is1554even larger than today--that exceeds the defense budget, it1555exceeds Medicare and the ACA, and it--I am sorry--Medicaid and1556the ACA, and it exceeds Medicare. This is truly a warning sign.1557Two years ago--yes, two years ago we passed up the defense1558budget in our interest spending.1559    Just a few questions. Ms. Madni, you mentioned Medicaid1560spending increasing even after the One Big Beautiful Bill and1561the reforms there such as removing requirement to work, keeping1562illegal aliens off welfare, checking eligibility. I believe we1563really should keep that in mind as we think about extending1564enhanced COVID ACA credits 2.5 years after the official end of1565COVID.1566    Could you explain how our growing deficit and debt is1567affecting--I believe Mr. Walker pointed out that Moody's1568downgraded America's credit rating this year. Can you explain1569how the growing debt and deficit crisis affect our credit1570rating?1571    Ms. Madni. Sure. Absolutely. I will take the first1572question, and then we will go from there. Keep me on track if I1573miss something from you.1574    Mr. Onder. Yes, sorry about that.1575    Ms. Madni. Yes. To go back to your question on Medicaid1576spending after OBBB, following the One Big Beautiful Bill Act,1577I would just say that, to describe Medicaid reforms included in1578that bill as cuts--that is just Washington math, plain and1579simple.1580    Mr. Onder. That is right. Only in D.C. does continued1581increase in spending constitute a cut.1582    Ms. Madni. Absolutely. In Fiscal Year 2024, we were1583spending $618 billion on Medicaid. A 31 percent increase over1584the budget window after the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would1585get to $807 billion. That is actually nearly double what our1586Medicaid spend was from the pre-COVID level of $409 billion.1587That is your first question.1588    Mr. Onder. Incredible. It is just factually wrong that we1589cut Medicaid in the One Big Beautiful Bill1590    Ms. Madni. Correct That is correct.1591    Mr. Onder. No matter what the Democrats tell us, no matter1592what the hospital lobbyists tell us--yes.1593    Ms. Madni. If you believe that math is math then you are1594right.1595    Mr. Onder. Yes. Right.1596    Ms. Madni. That it is also important that we talk a little1597bit about the other part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act1598because I was criticized by your colleague and I didn't have a1599chance to respond here.1600    When I say that I reject the premise that the tax cuts1601included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act don't increase the1602deficit, what I was trying to tell the Congressman is that1603those are not new tax cuts.1604    Mr. Onder. Right.1605    Ms. Madni. These are things that the American people are1606already experiencing.1607    Mr. Onder. Right. What the One Big Beautiful Bill Act was1608to prevent a tax hike on the American people.1609    Mr. Onder. Exactly. I think sometimes--to some extent, we1610Republicans that are messaging largest tax cut in American1611history, that is not exactly true. What we did is prevented a1612multitrillion-dollar tax increase, which is what my Democrat1613colleagues seem to advocate.1614    Ms. Madni. That is correct, sir.1615    Mr. Onder. OK.1616    Ms. Madni. Then you asked me as well--I recognize you only1617have a few seconds left.1618    Mr. Onder. Yes. Go ahead.1619    Ms. Madni. You asked me as well about how our interest1620payments are negatively impacting our standing in terms of our1621credit. Well, that couldn't be more clear. You pointed out that1622our interest payments are outpacing our payments for defense.1623They are outpacing our economy. They are outpacing everything1624that is sustainable. We are making a $1.22 trillion interest1625payment in the next fiscal year, and that alone, as I mentioned1626at the beginning of this Congress, is larger than the GDPs of1627every country in the world except for 16, excepting the United1628States, of course. That is going to naturally have an impact1629when credit rating agencies are considering whether or not we1630can actually meet our obligations.1631    Mr. Onder. No wonder young people can't afford to buy homes1632because they are competing with the Federal Government for1633borrowing.1634    Ms. Madni. Precisely.1635    Mr. Onder. Thank you very much for your testimony. I yield1636back.1637    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from Missouri. I now1638recognize the gentlelady from Vermont.1639    Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair.1640    We are talking today about a constitutional requirement1641that spending has to equal revenue, but what Republicans are1642not saying--but which we all know--is that this means you are1643going to have to cut Social Security, Medicare, food1644assistance, and other programs that regular people rely on. As1645a Member of the Budget Committee, I have spent three years--1646three years--on conversations like this and all the while1647watching Republicans continue to balloon the national debt to1648finance tax cuts for people who don't actually need them. Can1649we all finally admit once and for all that tax cuts do not1650trickle down? All you have to do is ask regular people who1651can't afford their groceries right now.1652    Mr. Duke, thanks so much for being here. I want to talk1653about what Republicans mean when they talk about a balanced1654budget amendment. From my perspective, they mean that you are1655going to have to make steep cuts to benefits, while rewarding1656the wealthy with additional tax cuts. A balanced budget1657amendment always sounds so simple, but the Federal budget is1658not actually like a household budget. It is not. It doesn't1659matter how many times we say it. It is not.1660    Mr. Duke, is it possible that this proposed constitutional1661requirement would endanger Social Security?1662    Mr. Duke. Absolutely it would.1663    Ms. Balint. Tell me a little bit more. How would it do1664that?1665    Mr. Duke. We have the baby boomers. They worked for a bunch1666of years. That created surpluses into the Social Security and1667Medicare trust funds, right? Now, we are drawing them down as1668they are retiring, and those trust funds are scheduled to1669exhaust in the 2030s. A balanced budget amendment would apply1670to the whole government. Those accumulated surpluses from 10-151671years ago wouldn't count anymore, right?1672    Basically, what would need to happen for Social Security1673and Medicare to continue to pay 100 percent benefits is you1674would need to run a bigger surplus in the rest of the1675government, right? Which is really, really, really hard to do1676and frankly not realistic, right?1677    Ms. Balint. Yes.1678    Mr. Duke. Social Security just can't have its trust fund.1679That basically moves the problem we were going to face 10 years1680from now about Social Security and Medicare trust funds1681exhausting from the 2030s to now.1682    Ms. Balint. Yes. it is very serious. I can think of a1683simpler way to protect essential programs like Social Security.1684Is it true that we could just raise taxes on billionaires and1685corporations?1686    Mr. Duke. That certainly would be one way to--1687    Ms. Balint. It is an option, right?1688    Mr. Duke. Yes. It certainly is an option.1689    Ms. Balint. It is an option. It is on the table. We already1690have that power. Is that right?1691    Mr. Duke. According to Article I, yes.1692    Ms. Balint. Yes. Exactly. According to Article I, I am1693going to get to that in just a minute.1694    What worries me so seriously about this conversation is1695that this whole concept of a balanced budget amendment requires1696us to actually support the Constitution that we have. You can't1697have this amendment if you don't have respect for the1698separation of powers, if you don't have respect for the powers1699of the purse, if you don't have respect for the Constitution as1700a whole, and under this Republican government, none of these1701things currently exist.1702    My Republican colleagues have completely given up Congress'1703Article I powers, letting the President do whatever he wants.1704They have stepped back and let the Executive Branch run wild.1705We have invoked the Founders a lot today, and I can tell you1706they would be disgusted by the Majority's willingness to cede1707their power to this President.1708    President Trump and congressional Republicans have1709completely abandoned constitutional governance by three coequal1710branches. They have allowed the President to illegally refuse1711to spend money as directed by Congress. They have conducted1712absolutely zero oversight of misconduct and open corruption1713across the agencies and the White House. We just spent a month1714out of session because the Speaker would not stand up to our1715President and protect our Article I powers.1716    Why do I care so much about the Article I powers? It is not1717because of our power. It is because we represent the people. We1718represent the people who want us to pass those policies that1719actually benefit them, and we don't have that right now. This1720whole conversation about going through this rigamarole of an1721idea that has a snowball's chance in hell of ever coming to1722fruition--when we could actually spend our time here protecting1723our Article I powers.1724    I appreciate you being here. I appreciate all the1725witnesses. I yield back.1726    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady from Vermont. I will now1727recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin.1728    Mr. Grothman. First, I would like to thank you very much1729for holding this hearing. We are kind of in the middle of1730appropriation bills here, and it is shocking to the degree1731which my colleagues think that we are running huge surpluses1732rather than we have to deal with deficits. It would be nice if1733we get a balanced budget out of this, but at a minimum, we can1734educate our colleagues as to what a dire situation we are in.1735    Ms. Madni, I will ask you a few questions as to where this1736ship is headed. Do you know approximately right now--maybe it1737is unfair to ask you without checking there--the percentage of1738our budget that is borrowed?1739    Ms. Madni. I am sorry, sir. What? The percentage--1740    Mr. Grothman. The percentage of our budget that is1741borrowed.1742    Ms. Madni. That is powered?1743    Mr. Grothman. Borrowed.1744    Ms. Madni. Borrowed. Oh, borrowed. I apologize. I couldn't1745quite hear you. Far too much. If you just look at our interest1746payments, that is really what you need to start thinking about.1747In terms of what we are borrowing--1748    Mr. Grothman. I think we are borrowing--1749    Ms. Madni. --our deficit spend is $1.9 trillion.1750    Mr. Couchman. About a quarter of revenue is borrowed.1751    Mr. Grothman. Right. Twenty-six percent, which is kind of1752shocking. Do you know how much we are spending on--the1753percentage of all our budget--how much is already not on new,1754neat stuff but just paying interest on the debt we have?1755    Ms. Madni. The percentage for interest only, you are1756saying?1757    Mr. Grothman. Yes. Percentage of--1758    Ms. Madni. Yes, sir. The percentage that we are paying on1759interest is 13 percent.1760    Mr. Grothman. OK. About a seventh of our budget already is1761going not to Social Security or tanks or wasting money on a1762Truman Scholarship program. I was just in a different hearing.1763What a waste of money. Already 14 percent is interest.1764    Could you guys--any one of you--jump forward and tell me--1765obviously, if you were an individual, you couldn't keep1766borrowing 26 percent of every dollar you spend. Obviously, if a1767seventh of what you are spending is already interest, you would1768just--they would send you to debt counseling or something or1769another.1770    How long can we go at this rate, and what is going to1771happen when we can't go any longer?1772    Ms. Madni. We will start entering a fiscal spiral in the17732030s if we continue down this path. You mentioned earlier1774appropriations and the fact that we are underway in that full-1775year discussion right now.1776    One thing to keep in mind--of course, appropriations are1777only 27 percent of our Federal budget, but even within that,1778the Senate's proposed appropriations bills right now--the1779remainder of them that were not already enacted--are $501780billion or more--because we haven't seen the full text of all1781them--than what the House appropriations bills propose. That1782alone is something that you could do to deal with immediately1783the trajectory that we are on.1784    Obviously, $50 billion is not going to resolve our1785trillions of dollars that we are currently in the hole for just1786this year, $38.4 trillion overall, but it is important to start1787building that muscle memory among your colleagues.1788    Mr. Couchman. To build on that, the point of budgeting is1789to look at everything and see how we can do better, but that is1790not what Congress does. Congress does appropriations. It is1791important, but it is 26 percent of spending. We need to be1792looking at all spending, all revenue, including tax1793expenditures, getting all the Committees involved like1794Wisconsin does.1795    Mr. Grothman. Just so you know, Mr. Couchman, I believe1796irresponsible people around here like to rattle on about all1797the mandatory spending, and they are right except for the1798reason they rattle on about it. It is because they specifically1799don't want to do what they should do on discretionary spending.1800    Mr. Couchman. Look at everything.1801    Mr. Grothman. Yes. Exactly. I am trying to think.1802    Mr. Walker. Congressman, can I provide something that would1803be helpful?1804    Mr. Grothman. Sure.1805    Mr. Walker. What I found that resonates with the public is,1806if you take the financial statements from the U.S. Government1807as of September 30, 2024--if Uncle Sam was a person, you drop1808eight zeros, and here is what you get: $50,000 in revenue,1809$74,000 in expenses, $24,000 in the deficit, $1,240,000 in1810total liabilities and unfunded promises, $57,000 in assets,1811underwater $1,183,000. Would you lend money to that person?1812    By the way, the crisis is coming way earlier than the 2030s1813from--based on prime economists on both sides of the aisle.1814    Mr. Grothman. I was standing on the floor a couple weeks1815ago, and one of my colleagues who is a conservative by any1816standard, I had thought--I still think he is--thought that this1817was inevitable. Eventually, the U.S. is just going to have to1818throw up their hands. Can we get out of this, do you believe,1819given the people that are in Congress are pretty motley crew?1820    Mr. Couchman. There are an extraordinarily number--or an1821extraordinary number of talented people on both sides that are1822being held back by a broken process, and if we fix the process,1823then we will get much more from Congress. Article I--Congress1824should be the strongest branch. It is not. It is not coequal1825branches. This is supposed to be the dominant branch, and it1826has been curious to hear so many Members of Congress talking1827about Presidents. Why not talk about this institution and1828fixing this institution?1829    Mr. Grothman. Well, this institution is horrible. They are1830horrible.1831    Mr. Couchman. Well, let's make it better.1832    Mr. Grothman. It is not the process. It is the people, I1833believe.1834    Ms. Balint. You are part of it.1835    Mr. Walker. Not without a constitutional amendment. You1836won't solve this problem without a constitutional amendment.1837    Mr. Grothman. OK. Thank you for giving me an extra 501838seconds.1839    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, and I1840believe the gentlelady from Vermont has some consent requests.1841    Ms. Balint. I do. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the1842record three tweets, the first from Mr. Kurt Couchman: ``The1843claim that Trump's tariffs didn't cause inflation makes no1844sense.''1845    Also, from Kurt Couchman, ``President Trump's steel and1846aluminum tariffs are terrible for the metal-using industry jobs1847in my rural Pennsylvania hometown.''1848    A retweet, ``It would be great if the Supreme Court saves1849Trump and the GOP from themselves and kills the President's1850ability to drive up costs on consumers by ending his1851unconstitutional tariffs.''1852    Thank you. I ask unanimous consent to enter them into the1853record.1854    Mr. Roy. Without objection, those will be entered into the1855record. I now recognize the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, the1856Ranking Member, Ms. Scanlon.1857    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Clearly, we have1858structural issues here with our debt, with our budgets. I1859wanted to focus on the revenue side because that is a side that1860doesn't seem to get enough attention, and I would start with1861something that you talked about, Mr. Duke.1862    In this big bill that passed last summer, our colleagues1863across the aisle have justified it as being necessary to avoid1864a tax cut on the American people, when we know that most of it1865was going to wealthier folks. You mentioned that if there had1866been a cap on who got those--or a floor on who got those tax1867cuts, it could have had a very different impact. Can you talk1868about that?1869    Mr. Duke. Absolutely. The full cost of the tax cuts that1870passed were about $4.5 trillion, but extending the expiring tax1871cuts was four trillion. That is the pile we are working with1872here. The cost of extending them for households making under1873$400,000, on the other hand, was less than half that amount1874according to analysis by the Treasury Department, right?1875    Offsetting the $4 trillion of costs would be really, really1876hard to do. The $1.9 trillion, there are ways you can do that1877on the revenue side too. That makes the job a lot easier. It is1878just making sure that the two-percent of households making over1879$400,000 don't get a tax cut. It would have made the job a1880whole heck of a lot easier.1881    Ms. Scanlon. It is certainly not chump change.1882    Another thing that we have seen under this administration--1883and it was mentioned by one of our colleagues--is the purported1884savings by DOGE, but one of those big DOGEisms has been to1885radically cut the IRS--the IRS which has a return on investment1886of $5-$12 for every dollar spent there--and the laying off of1887people who were supposed to go after the big dollar tax cheats.1888Can you talk about how that would have an impact on our1889revenue?1890    Mr. Duke. Yes. You spelled it outright that we could have1891the perfect tax system that basically took care of our fiscal1892trajectory in the Internal Revenue Code, but if there aren't1893the people to enforce it, it doesn't matter because nobody is1894going to pay their taxes, right?1895    The key thing is having the IRS, and that was a key1896investment made under the Biden Administration to increase IRS1897staffing, especially with a focus on households making over1898$400,000 and large corporations. They have been systemically1899laying off those units that go after those groups. That just1900obviously mechanically will make it easier for those groups to1901just not pay the taxes they owe. That increases the deficit.1902    Ms. Scanlon. Shockingly, they canceled the folks who were1903going to go after the big spenders.1904    Programs like Social Security and Medicare are part of1905America's contract with our citizens and part of a long-held1906promise we have made to our country's seniors that people will1907contribute their wages over a lifetime and earn benefit that1908will be available when they become older or if they are1909disabled.1910    Can you talk about how the balanced budget amendment that1911is being proposed--amendments that are being proposed might1912threaten those Social Security benefits?1913    Mr. Duke. Right. Social Security and Medicare outlays are1914part of the government, right? It is just part of it. Balanced1915budget amendments would basically treat those payments as part1916of the Federal budget as a whole and so would be limited.1917    Now, we actually don't know a lot of the enforcement1918mechanisms behind a lot of these amendments, so it is hard to1919say exactly what would happen. The key thing is that those1920programs are drawing down their trust funds they accumulated1921when the baby boom was working, and unless we are running a1922large enough surplus in the rest of the government, they would1923not be able to tap those reserves to pay out the benefits owed1924to people, right?1925    I guess you could just make massive cuts to other parts of1926the government to keep those parts flowing. That is very1927unlikely. They would be just as much at risk as the rest of the1928government.1929    Ms. Scanlon. Of course, the fact that the tax cuts we have1930seen over the last couple of decades have radically increased1931income inequality, that also has undermined our Social Security1932system because there are caps on who has to contribute. Once1933again, folks on the lower end of the economic scale are paying1934proportionately more than folks on the upper end.1935    I did want to request unanimous consent to enter into the1936record an article entitled, ``How DOGE's Cuts to the IRS1937Threaten to Cost More Than DOGE Will Ever Save.''1938    Mr. Roy. Without objection.1939    Ms. Scanlon. OK. Thank you, and I would yield back.1940    Mr. Roy. I thank the Ranking Member. I will now recognize1941the gentleman from Texas for five minutes.1942    Mr. Gill. Thank you, Chair Roy. Thanks for holding this1943hearing and especially for your fights over the past several1944years to promote fiscal prudence in Washington and very boldly1945standing up for the American taxpayers. We really appreciate1946that.1947    It is not surprising to me that our colleagues across the1948aisle are not in favor of a balanced budget amendment. It would1949obviously stop them from spending money on their top1950priorities, which we have learned this year are things like1951transgender surgeries for foreigners, DEI scholarships in1952foreign countries, Left-wing media outlets like NPR and PBS, it1953would stop them from funding the NGO industrial complex that is1954facilitated mass migration into our country, and all the1955various other wasteful government programs that we have been1956fighting to slash over the past year since I have been in1957Congress at least. Those are precisely the types of programs1958that I would like to see cut and why, among other reasons, that1959a balanced budget would, in fact, be prudent.1960    Every dollar that we spend right now above what we take in1961at revenue is money that our children and grandchildren are1962going to have to pay back, and I for one don't want to and I1963don't think that it is in any way moral to saddle my children,1964my son or my daughter, with the debt to finance ridiculous1965programs as we have been.1966    With that said, I want to thank the witnesses for being1967here. I really appreciate y'all's time.1968    Ms. Madni, I agreed that--with you that achieving a1969balanced budget requires a significant decrease in spending. Do1970you know what the deficit was in 2019?1971    Ms. Madni. I am sure that you have it in front of you, sir,1972so I am going to concede--1973    Mr. Gill. The $984 billion. Do you know what the deficit is1974now?1975    Ms. Madni. It is not good.1976    Mr. Gill. Not good. A lot more than that, isn't it?1977    Ms. Madni. Yes. Absolutely, sir.1978    Mr. Gill. Do you know how much it is?1979    Ms. Madni. Yes. We are at $1.9 trillion.1980    Mr. Walker. Estimated to be $1.8 trillion.1981    Mr. Gill. There we go. $1.8 trillion?1982    Ms. Madni. I think it is actually $1.9 now.1983    Mr. Gill. Got it. During that time, we have seen spending1984balloon and revenue not being able to keep up, of course. That1985has resulted in nearly doubling the deficit in six years.1986    One of the things that we worked on as part of the tax1987package that we passed earlier this year was reducing wasteful1988spending. We cut spending by $1.5 trillion, the biggest1989mandatory spending reduction in our country's history. I would1990love to hear your thoughts on the work that we did as part of1991that spending reduction. What portions of that do you think1992were the most beneficial?1993    Ms. Madni. It is a little difficult for me to choose just1994one piece of it that was the most beneficial, but I do think1995that there were some significant wins. As we mentioned, we1996prevented a tax hike on the American people and specifically1997working families, so I would be remiss not to mention that. In1998terms of your question on cuts, we eliminated $1.5 trillion in1999Federal spending. That is going to reduce inflation2000significantly.2001    One of the pieces of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that I2002am most in favor of is that we really started refocusing2003Medicaid on the vulnerable populations, and that included2004reforms that reduced the ability of Medicaid dollars, Federal2005dollars from taxpayers--of course, it is the taxpayer's money,2006not the government's--from going toward illegal immigrants. We2007also ensured that those who can work must work to access2008Medicaid dollars. That is really important not just in terms of2009our fiscal health as a Nation, but because these programs were2010designed as safety net programs for the most vulnerable, and2011this helps refocus them.2012    Mr. Gill. Yes. There has been some talk and we discussed2013possibly doing a second reconciliation bill. What are a few2014policy ideas that you think we should particularly focus on if2015we do go in that direction?2016    Ms. Madni. I will stick with the Medicaid theme for a2017little while, sir. One thing that we could do is lower or2018eliminate the Federal match assistance percentage floor. Right2019now, there is a statutory floor of 50 percent. We could reduce2020that so that States who under the formula would receive less2021from the Federal Government could. That could save us $4002022billion. We could also repeal the Medicaid FMAP increase to the2023States that initially declined expansion. That would save us2024over $13 billion.2025    Another option would be reducing the enhanced FMAP match2026for expansion populations. That was from the Affordable Care2027Act. This, of course, is what gives the able-bodied, working-2028age adults $9 for every $1 for the traditional population. If2029we did that, it would save $700 billion.2030    Mr. Gill. Thank you, Ms. Madni.2031    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I now2032recognize the gentlelady from Wyoming for five minutes.2033    Ms. Hageman. Well, thank you.2034    First, I would like to correct one of the statements made2035by our colleague on the other side about who actually pays the2036income taxes in this country. The top 10 percent of earners2037bore responsibility for 76 percent of all income taxes paid,2038and the top 25 percent paid 89 percent of all income taxes.2039Altogether, the top 50 percent of filers earned 90 percent of2040all income and were responsible for 98 percent of all income2041taxes paid in 2021. It is very clear that the people who own2042the majority of the money are also the ones that are2043responsible for paying the income taxes in this country.2044    The Fiscal Year 2025 national debt currently stands at2045around $1.78 trillion--that is what I was looking at just this2046morning--and the national debt is at $38 trillion and counting.2047In 2010, when I first started really kind of ringing the bell2048about the debt and the deficit, the debt was $10 trillion. We2049have added another 28 trillion, almost $30 trillion just in the2050last 15 years. The U.S. now spends 13 percent of its budget on2051interest on the national debt and more than current annual2052spending on Medicare or the national defense.2053    Mr. Walker, understanding that the successful adoption of a2054balanced budget amendment to the Constitution would inevitably2055help rein in future annual spending, factoring in our existing2056deficit and debt, I believe, merits some additional attention.2057With our deficit just shy of the $2 trillion, how would the2058implementation of a balanced budget amendment need to approach2059this growing figure? What would we do with that growing figure,2060with the deficit?2061    Mr. Walker. Well, first, I believe that the debt-to-GDP is2062too high right now to promote future economic growth,2063individual opportunity, et cetera. You need to do two things:2064    (1) You need to limit how much debt as a percentage of the2065economy the country can take on, absent--limited in2066extraordinary circumstances--a credit card limit, all right?2067    (2) Let's set a target for a lower debt-to-GDP that we want2068to get to in 10-15 years and have mechanisms that can get us2069there, if you will.2070    The American people know that we have a problem here. They2071support that approach that I just articulated. In addition to2072that, they recognize the problem is both spending and revenue.2073When you look at it, you have to look at it as a percentage of2074GDP. What percentage of spending to GDP? What percentage of2075revenue? The American people support a three-to-one ratio,2076three parts projected spending reduction to one part revenue2077increase, but they believe that both are necessary.2078    Ms. Hageman. OK. Well, should the enactment of a balanced2079budget amendment then provide for a transition period to2080achieve a balanced budget over time, or could this be done2081immediately?2082    Mr. Walker. No. It needs to have a transition. There is no2083question.2084    Ms. Hageman. Do you know how long that transition should2085be?2086    Mr. Walker. I would say 10 years as a general guideline.2087Kurt Couchman has said the same.2088    Ms. Hageman. You also talked about exceptions. The COVID-192089so-called public health emergency was initiated by HHS in2090January 2020. It was renewed 12 times, and it finally expired2091in May 2023. The COVID-19 national emergency was initiated in2092March 2020 and terminated in April 2023 following finally the2093passage of a joint resolution of Congress. According to the2094Treasury Department, from Fiscal Year 2019-2021, Federal2095spending increased by about 50 percent in response to the2096COVID-19 pandemic.2097    I believe that the Democrats spent over $5 trillion while2098Joe Biden was in the White House addressing some of this.2099According to USAspending.gov, approximately $4.7 trillion in2100total budgetary resources was spent in response to COVID-19.2101    Another point of contention for a balanced budget amendment2102is obviously the concept of exceptions, such as spending for in2103times of war, national security, natural disasters, and other2104emergencies.2105    Mr. Couchman, one of my concerns is how those exceptions2106will be defined and implemented. Do you see that there could be2107potential abuse both by Congress as well as the White House by2108declaring national emergencies to circumvent any kind of budget2109constraints that we may adopt with a balanced budget amendment?2110    Mr. Couchman. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,2111and so Congress can't be content to simply pass a BBA and2112assume that it will fix all the problems. I once believed that.2113I was naive and young, and I now believe there has to be a2114robust suite of statutory mechanisms to help Congress exercise2115its legislative powers to check and balance itself, but also2116the White House and, in some cases, perhaps the judiciary.2117    One other quick note about a balanced budget amendment2118design. It is critical to avoid annual balance because tying2119your revenue and spending together so closely when revenue is2120so volatile will create all kinds of problems. In fact, the way2121that Mr. Duke described--but there are other BBAs that don't2122have that problem and also don't rely on defining spending as2123outlays, which is when money leaves the Federal Government. If2124you define it in general term, you can, through implementing2125legislation, avoid all the problems that Mr. Duke talked about2126with respect to business cycles and automatic stabilizers.2127    Ms. Hageman. Have you identified those and written them2128down?2129    Mr. Couchman. Yes, ma'am, and they have--a big piece of2130that has been introduced as legislation by Representative Tom2131Emmer and then-Senator Mike Braun.2132    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. I yield back.2133    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady from Wyoming. I will now2134recognize the gentlelady from California for five minutes.2135    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair.2136    Before I begin, I want to make sure that the American2137people understand what we are talking about, that the deficit2138is simply the gap between what the government spends and what2139it brings in each year, and when that gap grows, we add to the2140national debt. Balancing the budget would mean closing the gap2141so we stop adding more debt.2142    Republicans call themselves fiscal hawks, but the numbers2143tell a different story. Under President Trump's first term, the2144deficit jumped from $665 billion to $3 trillion--from a ``B''2145to a ``T''--and he has already added another $2 trillion this2146term. Republicans added $155 billion to the national debt in a2147single week. The national debt is now $38.336 trillion, driven2148by GOP tax cuts that will cost $3.4 trillion through 2034 and2149nearly $5 trillion if extended, and now we spend more than $12150trillion a year just on interest. That is the real fiscal2151landscape that we are dealing with.2152    Anyone who is managing their house budget would fall over2153backward if somebody was like, well, this is what you can't do.2154You have to cut. This is what we are continuing to do. Spend2155like it is water out of a tap.2156    Mr. Duke, nonpartisan analysis shows that the Bush and2157Trump tax cuts are the primary drivers of long-term debt. It2158will cost $3.4 trillion through 2034 and nearly $5 trillion if2159extended. How central are these tax cuts to the debt trajectory2160we are on right now?2161    Mr. Duke. Right. Basically, the debt would not be growing2162anymore if we had not--if we reversed those tax cuts or if they2163hadn't happened.2164    One analysis by a former colleague of mine calculated that,2165of the increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio in the 21st century,2166over half is attributable to the Bush and Trump tax cuts. Over2167half. The rest is emergency spending like COVID and things like2168that, but over half is attributable to those two policy2169choices.2170    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. OK. Mr. Duke, while Republicans demand2171cuts to food assistance and healthcare and childcare and2172housing support, President Trump and his officials have spent2173$300 million on a White House ballroom, more than $220 million2174on golf travel, up to $45 million on a birthday military2175parade, and $473 million on National Guard deployments. Trump2176officials have also misused taxpayer resources, including a2177$60-million FBI jet that Kash Patel used for personal travel2178such as date nights and luxury hunting trips and a golf2179vacation in Scotland, and the Coast Guard purchasing up to $2002180million in Gulfstream G-700 private jets for Secretary Kristi2181Noem. These folks are not using their mileage points for sure.2182    Given these expenditures, Mr. Duke, how would you2183characterize the fiscal priorities reflected in these decisions2184and, at the very least, are they putting American taxpayers2185first?2186    Mr. Duke. Yes. The way I would think about it is that we2187have done--put into law enormous cuts to SNAP and Medicaid that2188help working families afford groceries and healthcare, right?2189The way it is framed is there was no other choice. Just these2190tax cuts and the bill they just did show that there was a2191choice and they decided to opt for that. Budgets are about2192priorities, and we can choose those priorities. Essentially, we2193have chosen tax cuts for the largest estates worth over $302194million per couple over families trying to buy food and2195groceries.2196    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Yes. Mr. Duke, Republicans also approved2197a $40-billion bailout for Argentina, including a $20 billion2198U.S. currency swap, even though Argentina has defaulted nine2199times. Like, a huge, bigly credit risk. What financial risk2200does that create for American taxpayers?2201    Mr. Duke. I don't think it takes a financial wizard to know2202that investing in Argentina is not your best bet.2203    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. A losing proposition. Absolutely. Thank2204you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.2205    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady from California. I will now2206recognize myself for up to five minutes.2207    First, I want to appreciate the witnesses. We have had a2208lengthy hearing with most of the Members of the Committee2209showing up, so I appreciate your time and your willingness to2210be here and for focusing on this issue.2211    Now, I will note this has regrettably mostly turned into a2212Budget Committee hearing. Now, recognizing it is a balanced2213budget amendment question so it necessarily raises those2214issues, the question really before us is whether or not we2215should amend the Constitution of the United States to have some2216sort of structural changes to force Congress to be fiscally2217responsible, recognizing that both sides, as you just saw--in2218its normal, relatively petty way--point at each other for being2219the cause of our deficit woes. The fact of the matter is both2220sides--my Democratic colleagues and my Republican colleagues--2221past, present, and future--are responsible for this.2222    Some reporting was done that when Mr. Musk came to visit2223the Republican delegation in December a year ago--almost to the2224date. Probably this week, I am guessing, if somebody Googles2225it--that Mr. Musk was talking about DOGE and talking about the2226savings, and many Republican colleagues went to the microphone2227and lauded the prospects of cuts and spending restraint. I2228stood up and I said, ``Mr. Musk, you are going to have no2229problem identifying things to cut. You are going to produce a2230great list, and we should do most of it.'' Your problem is2231going to be everyone standing right next to me here, meaning2232all of my colleagues. Now, I would have said that--it happened2233to be a Republican meeting. I would have said that about my2234Democratic colleagues as well.2235    Because, as my friend from Kentucky said, we are2236constitutionally, as Members of Congress, hard-wired,2237unfortunately, to want to effectively buy people's votes with a2238never-ending array of spending programs, whether they are2239meritorious or not. I often have people who come into my office2240who ask for cancer subsidies. As a cancer survivor, I am2241sympathetic. I often and almost always tell them no unless they2242come in with a payment. Tell me how they are going to pay for2243it. What else are they going to cut?2244    Same thing with my farmers. My farmers come in, and they2245are looking for something--for extensions in the farm bill and2246so forth, and I say, well, are you going to do anything about2247the 80 percent of the farm bill that is SNAP and the extent to2248which it is consuming the budget? Well, no, we can't. Well,2249then I am not going to support it. Members of Congress have got2250to actually--to the gentleman from Kentucky's point--do their2251job.2252    The only thing I want to clarify here for the record2253because we are here trying to talk about whether we should2254amend the Constitution is--I just want to go down the witnesses2255and say--and I know the answer, but it is yes or no. Do you2256believe that the Constitution of the United States can and2257should be amended to provide a mechanism to ensure that we are2258not spending more than is coming in as a general matter?2259    Mr. Roy. Mr. Walker, do you believe it can and should be?2260    Mr. Walker. Yes, but I believe it ought to be debt to GDP.2261    Mr. Roy. Mr. Couchman.2262    Mr. Couchman. Yes, as nearly every advanced country has2263already done.2264    Mr. Roy. Ms. Madni.2265    Ms. Madni. Yes, absolutely.2266    Mr. Roy. Mr. Duke.2267    Mr. Duke. Should not.2268    Mr. Roy. OK. Mr. Duke, you would maintain that position2269even if it were only tax increases that were suggested as the2270mechanism for ensuring that there was fiscal responsibility and2271that inflows and outflows were equitable?2272    Mr. Duke. That's the job of Congress to do. I'm a 49ers2273fan, I wouldn't approve--that's the job of Congress to do. I'm2274a 49ers fan, I wouldn't approve of a law that said 49ers win2275the Superbowl this year.2276    Mr. Roy. I always appreciate the consistency that you're2277saying that it shouldn't be put in place even for tax increases2278as opposed to spending restraint. What I would question, then,2279is--and I don't even debate the merits of whether or not2280Congress is shirking its responsibility on an annual basis. I2281would only point out that it has done so for effectively2282eternity.2283    The question here is, on behalf of the American people,2284what do we do about it because as Mr. Massie said, ``well,2285elect better people.'' Well, we never have. We elect 435 people2286among Members of Congress who do the same thing every Congress,2287which is spend more money than we take in as revenues.2288    My question is, again, do you not believe that there should2289be some mechanism, something in place, perhaps, for example, if2290you can't amend the Constitution, we don't think we should do2291that, then should we have statutory restraints that say the2292Members of Congress should not get paid, or Members of Congress2293shouldn't be able to hold chairmanships if they vote for2294budgets that are out of balance, or that Members of Congress in2295the NRCC or the DCCC can't raise money, with all their special2296perks and benefits to raise money for incumbent Members of2297Congress who are crapping all over the American people by2298mortgaging their children's future.2299    Is there anything that we can or should do as Congress to2300restrain Congress from racking up deficits?2301    Mr. Duke. Congress has to want it. Your colleague, Mr.2302Massie, laid it out, that it's on the Members of Congress to do2303it. For example, statutory PAYGO. Right. Where we have a law2304that says if you increase the deficit automatic across the2305board--it always gets waived.2306    Mr. Roy. I get it, but we do this all the time. I'm not2307going to go too far over my time, I'm trying to be indulgent to2308some of my colleagues, so I'll give myself a few more seconds,2309but we've done that over and over and over and over and over2310and over again.2311    Mr. Duke. That's my point.2312    Mr. Roy. I know, but that's why we are here. I can sit here2313and I can ask these guys questions, I know what their answer is2314going to be, I know what your answer is going to be.2315    The point here is we didn't have an actual debate about2316amending the Constitution to try to achieve something, or in2317the absence of amending the Constitution, is in something this2318body, the U.S. Congress can do to stop doing what we're doing,2319which is killing our country with interest piling up around the2320ears of our children. If answer is only that we've got to look2321in the mirror and be better, I agree, but we never do. We2322don't. Those of us that are dying on the Hill trying to fight2323on the spending restraint, it's literally like pulling teeth to2324get discretionary spending held flat while we try to grow the2325economy out of it and deal with the fact that mandatory2326spending has gone from, what, 4 percent in 1962 to, what, 242327percent now of the overall GDP, and discretionary has gone from2328about 12 percent to 6 percent over that time. Mandatory2329spending is consuming it.2330    Now, I've gone a minute over I would just say, look, I2331appreciate the witnesses coming in. I appreciate their2332expertise. I appreciate my colleagues. I would suggest that we2333have got to do something to stop mortgaging our children's2334future, and we've got to stop pointing across at each other and2335saying, well, you did it and you did it. It's just simply not2336true.2337    My Democratic colleagues give Clinton credit for the 1990s,2338but want to ignore welfare reform and ignore the Republican2339Congress that came in 1994-1995.2340    With that, I used up my time. Does anybody have any consent2341requests. The gentlelady from California.2342    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Well, I don't have a consent.2343    Mr. Roy. No, well, that didn't--2344    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. I just want to say something to you.2345    Mr. Roy. OK.2346    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. OK. Yes. First, I just want to commend2347you on your comments and rules on the Score Act. OK.2348    Second, I do want to say that I do think some districts try2349to elect better people. I do think that. I want to commend you,2350you mentioned petty in your comments, and I was thinking I want2351to commend you, Mr. Chair, for discouraging any petty, caustic,2352childish outbursts in this hearing. I just want to thank you.2353    Mr. Roy. Well, I thank the gentlelady. I do think we owe it2354to the future generations to actually solve this problem, and2355we're not. If we want to amend the Constitution, let's have2356that debate. If we don't, let's come up with another solution.2357    With that I will do whatever I'm supposed to do to conclude2358the hearing. This concludes today's hearing. We thank the2359witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee. Without2360objection, all Members will have five legislative days to2361submit additional written questions for the witnesses, or2362additional materials for the record. Without objection, the2363hearing is adjourned.2364    [Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]23652366    All materials submitted for the record by Members of the2367Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government can2368be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent2369.aspx?EventID=118721.23702371                                 [all]