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

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

The subcommittee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing on balancing the federal budget. I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. Today, our national debt is at $38 trillion and counting. In the time it took me to read that first sentence, the debt increased by over $200,000. By this time tomorrow, we'll add $6 billion more. By any calculation, our nation's debt is staggering. For generations, politicians here in Washington have shunned hard conversations about spending, choosing to max out our national credit card and leaving the next generation to foot the bill. Families across our nation have to balance their budgets, and there's no reason their elected leaders shouldn't as well. Americans know that debt comes with strings attached. It's no different for government. Every dollar we spend beyond our means today is a dollar and change we must repay tomorrow. The more America borrows, the more expensive every next borrowed dollar becomes. Indeed, annual federal spending on interest, the price we pay for the last generation's fiscal indiscretion, is now one of the largest line items we have in the budget. We spend more on interest than we do on national defense. We spend more on interest than we do on Medicare. Republicans and Democrats will have different policy ideas and priorities, but surely we can agree that a budget hamstrung by huge interest payments benefits nobody. Our fiscal trajectory is alarming and unsustainable. Make no mistake, a reckoning will come. Indeed, America is already long down the road to a debt crisis. Financial markets have already shown grave concerns about America's long-term debt load. Higher-than-expected interest rates or other challenges could trigger a debt spiral. It's happened to other countries throughout history. It could happen to us, and without changes, it will happen to us. When that day of reckoning comes, it will be ugly. Spending cuts will be drastic and immediate instead of targeted and phased in over a longer period. Massive tax hikes will take money out of your pocket, not to fund new services, but to pay for services already rendered. It is a matter of when, not if, unless we make changes now while we still can. That's why we're having a hearing today on a balanced budget amendment. A balanced budget amendment would be a possible tool to beat back a future fiscal crisis. It could reduce the cost of living here and now. The enormous federal debt load is already driving up borrowing costs for all Americans: your mortgage, your car payment, and your student loans. And we saw the disastrous effects of budget-busting deficit spending during the catastrophic four years of the previous administration. With the eager support of my Democratic colleagues in Congress, the Biden-Harris administration approved $4.7 trillion in new deficit spending, racking up $8.5 trillion in new debt.

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

And

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

Now we've got—we have the worst inflation in 40 years. When Biden and Harris took office in January 2021, inflation was at just 1.4%, and by the middle of their term, it was over 9%. Inflation is a tax on everyone, but we all know who it hurts the most: the poor, the working class, seniors on fixed incomes, and American families who saw their expensive expenses explode, but no similar increase in their salaries. A balanced budget amendment is a long-debated tool that, if properly structured, could limit Washington's inflationary overspending and ensure that future federal outlays are funded with actual revenue, not debt and money printing. Indeed, a balanced budget amendment could build on the work we started with the One Big Beautiful Bill. We fought hard to ensure that we kept our promises of fiscal discipline. A balanced budget amendment could force Congress to kick the habit of spending money we don't have once and for all. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join us in calling for a full debate and a full consideration of a balanced budget amendment to get our fiscal house in order. Believe it or not, there's a long history of Democrats supporting balanced budget amendments, including former California Governor Jerry Brown. I hope that's still the case today. Let's have a good and honest debate on various proposals. Some proposals allow Congress to approve deficit spending only by a supermajority vote, and some delay the amendment's effective date to allow for a softer landing. I hope that we'll explore these finer points today with our expert panel. The concept of a balanced budget amendment is simple and powerful. It's important that we get the details right. Many states have requirements that they must balance their budgets. The federal government should be similarly situated. But I will note, and I know some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will raise appropriately the questions that if you have a balanced budget amendment with exceptions, will Congress not drive a truck through those exceptions Just as they currently do every time we vote on a debt ceiling increase. I say that to say that I'm not here to say that a balanced budget amendment is a panacea for irresponsible members of Congress on both sides of the aisle that continue to blow our budget to smithereens. We have to have responsibility in Congress, and a balanced budget amendment will not make up for irresponsible, irresponsible members of Congress who will exploit any loophole to spend money that we don't have and mortgage our children's future. The reason we're here to talk about a balanced budget amendment is because something has to change. If we're going to do something, structure it properly. If we're going to do something, do something to actually put brakes on what Congress does. That's what I hope we will debate today and have a full conversation about, because we've been talking about a balanced budget amendment for years. But every year or every other year or every few years, we literally disregard the current limit on our spending when we lift the debt ceiling. And we do it with regularity and with impunity. So whatever we do today, whatever discussion we have today, whatever debate we have on a balanced budget amendment, let's recognize that we're $38 trillion in the hole with no end in sight. I think that we should have a full-throated debate on this and look forward to having a discussion about a balanced budget amendment. And with that, I will yield to the ranking member for her opening statement.

Ranking Member Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA)SPEAKER_01

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for testifying today. It's an interesting topic and one that has certainly at least superficial appeal, but the devil, as always, is in the details. The decisions that Congress makes about the economy, about taxes, spending, and budgets are, or should be, decisions about our values, who we're fighting for, what kind of country we are or want to be, and the future we're trying to create for our children. Which brings us to the topic of today's hearing, a balanced budget constitutional amendment, which, at least in the proposals we've seen so far, seems to be a misguided proposal about how to address the often competing values and interests that have to be taken into account when crafting our national budget. We all share the goal of developing smart, efficient fiscal policies and budgets, but for decades, Republican presidents and members of Congress have talked a big game about fiscal responsibility while enacting policies that have exploded the federal deficit and the national debt. It wasn't that long ago, not generations as the chair suggested, but only about 25 years, when under the Clinton administration, the U.S. had a balanced budget for multiple years, fueled in part by a combination of tax increases, spending cuts, and reduced military spending. But since then, in the early 2000s and again during the first Trump administration, Republicans have handed the ultra-wealthy huge tax breaks, eroding the federal government's revenue base and threatening our ability to fund essential programs that Americans rely upon. Time and again, these policies have failed to produce the broader benefits for all Americans that the advocates of trickle-down economics have promised. And instead, these Republican policies have exploded the deficit, adding $10 trillion to the national debt. Despite this, this summer, Republicans once again doubled down, permanently extending the Trump tax giveaways from his first administration, extending those giveaways to the wealthy in their one big ugly bill, further expanding the deficit and ballooning the national debt, as was just noted. Now, after voting for that policy, our Republican colleagues are making a show of caring about fiscal responsibility. But don't be fooled. Today's hearing is part of a decades-long, orchestrated political effort to help corporations and the wealthiest people avoid paying their fair share. It's based on a theory that tries to convince people that reckless tax giveaways to the ultra-wealthy somehow stimulate investment and economic growth for everyone, for the greater good. But that's a lie that's been debunked again and again and again for more than 50 years now, and one that's led to sky-high income inequality and the enshrinement of a corporate oligarchy in our society. These tax policies, these giveaways, have fueled the greatest rise in income inequality that our country has known, at least since the robber baron days, resulting in a continuing transfer of wealth from working- and middle-class Americans to the wealthiest among us. And we need look no further than the fact that the top 1% in our country pay a lower tax rate than all other Americans. This pathological dedication to trickle-down economics is outrageous. It betrays the values this country should stand for and which our budget should reflect. If we want to shrink the deficit and lower the nation's debt, we should be talking about a tax policy that gives relief to working families and makes the rich and corporations pay their fair share, rather than allowing them to reap even more profits by imposing the costs of their business on the American people, whether by paying substandard wages that force workers to rely on food stamps or subsidized healthcare to survive, or that force Americans to pick up the costs of industrial waste, dangerous products, or unsafe working conditions. A tax policy that makes sure that everyone pays their fair share isn't a radical idea and should be the starting point of any serious discussion about bringing the two sides of the budget equation—taxes and revenue on the one hand, spending, including military spending, on the other. But it takes a different kind of politics than what we're hearing today, one that believes that the purpose of government is to serve all Americans, not just the wealthy and well-connected. And the programs that our Republican colleagues have been only too ready to slash in their big ugly bill and with the political scam of a balanced budget amendment that they're pushing here, these programs are critical to the health and well-being of the American people. The majority of our yearly spending is mandatory, that is funds not subject to congressional appropriation and which must be paid, including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, veterans benefits, retirement programs for military service members and retired federal employees. These are vital programs that help our government keep its promises to the American people. Less than half our budget goes to discretionary spending, which is spending that Congress appropriates every year, and half of that money goes to defense spending. We can make sure our national debt's on a sustainable path by investing wisely in the American people and taxing fairly. We can work to build an economy that grows from the middle out, not the top down. We can provide affordable healthcare and childcare, affordable housing, and make sure that every child gets a world-class public education. But that's not the focus of today's hearing. Instead, the solution to the deficit problem they helped create is to propose constitutional amendments that force Congress to balance the budget on the backs of working- and middle-class families, forcing cuts to essential benefits like Medicare and Social Security. House Republicans have introduced at least six different proposed balanced budget amendments. Though they don't all share the same features, they have the same common goal: to continue to put their thumb on the scale to favor big business and billionaires over working- and middle-class people, seniors, and our most vulnerable Americans. A balanced budget amendment would shackle Congress and limit our flexibility to respond to changing economic conditions or crises with appropriate fiscal and budgetary policies. As the chair mentioned, many of these proposals would require a supermajority in Congress to raise revenue or raise the debt limit, but not to cut spending. The framers of our Constitution rejected the principle of requiring a supermajority for basic government functions because they believed it would shift power away from the American people's popular will to a determined minority. Balanced budget proposals requiring a supermajority would allow an extremist minority to hold our nation's economy and financial stability hostage. And you only need to look at the chaos of the current Republican majority in the House to see what might be in store under such a proposed amendment. We've seen political brinksmanship over the debt ceiling and government funding. We've seen speakers dethroned and federal budgets that slash healthcare and food assistance for Americans while giving more handouts to billionaires and big business. A balanced budget amendment would only make things worse, and this dysfunction would then be baked into our Constitution and democracy. I don't think that's what the American people want or need. The bottom line is we don't need to amend the Constitution to balance the federal budget. Our colleagues need to get their heads out of the sand and be willing to look at the revenue side of the equation. During the '90s, under a Democratic president and a Republican-controlled Congress, the federal government ran budget surpluses without a balanced budget amendment. Our Republican colleagues control the House, the Senate, and the White House. If they wanted to do this, they could. But instead, they've chosen to make their number one legislative priority this year a trillion-dollar handout to their billionaire buddies. Our budget is not just numbers on a spreadsheet. It's the choices we make to invest in our neighbors, our communities, to provide opportunities for young people, to take care of the elderly and the most vulnerable, and to invest in American prosperity. If we really want a prosperous economy where everyone can get ahead, we need to abandon the misguided orthodoxy of trickle-down economics. Instead, we need to focus on policies that support children, family, communities, and our wider economy. We don't need a balanced budget. We just need Congress to do the job the American people sent us to do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

I thank the ranking member, and I would now recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Jordan, for his opening statement.

Full Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH)SPEAKER_11

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief. The, the ranking member just said, and I quote, a balanced budget amendment would shackle Congress. I think there are 30-some trillion reasons why that might not be a bad idea, frankly, and that's what this is about. She also said that the answer is to increase revenue, better known as raise taxes. That seems crazy to me as well. So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. I appreciate the chairman for having this hearing, and I yield back.

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

I thank Chairman Jordan. I would now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Raskin, for his opening statement.

Full Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD)SPEAKER_18

And thank you, Chairman Roy, and thanks to our witnesses for joining us today. Our Republican colleagues have convened this hearing to discuss a constitutional change to solve a problem that they have created legislatively, which is gigantic, runaway federal budget deficits. We don't need a constitutional amendment to legislatively balance the budget. We just need some old-fashioned fiscal discipline. In the 1990s, President Clinton worked with a Republican-controlled Congress to eliminate the deficit, and they ran huge surpluses without the aid of a contrived balanced budget constitutional amendment or even rhetoric about a balanced budget amendment. They just did it. Why can't Republicans, who control the House of Representatives, the US Senate, and the White House, do the exact same thing today with control of every part of the government? If they want to balance the budget, just do it. They could just take action on their own to make the hard decisions. But instead, they say, No, the real problem is we need to go out and get two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate and three-quarters of the states to do it, instead of just passing it by a majority in the House, in the Senate, in the White House. Obviously, they lack the political will or the fiscal discipline to do it. And they think that maybe they can distract everybody now with this extremely stale and tired rhetoric about passing a constitutional amendment. We can't even get reporters to come and cover this charade anymore. They're practicing spectacular fiscal irresponsibility and budget recklessness, and then try to cover it up with the pathetic papier-mâché of a balanced budget amendment. The problem of ballooning deficits returns whenever Republicans enjoy complete control of the political branches. This is one of the great ironies of our political rhetoric. When they are in control, the budget deficits soar, and it's the Democrats who always bring the deficits down. But they pass giant giveaways for wealthy corporations and billionaires. It was the policies of President George W. Bush and a GOP Congress that squandered the record budget surpluses of the Clinton years in the 1990s on tax cuts for the wealthy, even as the country was waging the staggeringly expensive, no-end wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2017, President Trump and a Republican Congress passed his so-called Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, a law that increased the federal deficit by $1.9 trillion. This year, they passed the obscenely ugly, profligate law, which will add a jaw-dropping $4 trillion to the national debt because of its giveaways for corporations with political insider influence and billionaires, at the same time that they're stripping health insurance and food assistance from tens of millions of Americans to offset just a small part of the enormous cost of the tax breaks that they cut for wealthy elites. So we don't need to start finger-painting on the Constitution to accomplish what our colleagues in the majority simply don't have the political discipline and will to do. You want to balance the budget, present a balanced budget and pass it. And after voting for the most reckless recent increase in federal spending, it's just, to me, way too little, way too late to have one more hearing on the idea of a balanced budget constitutional amendment. Something, by the way, which I think no other country in the world, or maybe it's a handful, but the vast majority of the countries in the world don't need this in order to run their fiscal systems. I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

I thank Ranking Member Raskin. Without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. We will now introduce today's witnesses: The Honorable David M. Walker. Mr. Walker is the chair of the Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation, a nonprofit organization that supports statutory and constitutional approaches to fiscal responsibility. He previously served as the Comptroller General of the United States, public trustee for Social Security and Medicare, and as the chairman of the Independent Audit Advisory Committee for the United Nations. Mr. Kurt Couchman. Mr. Couchman is a senior fellow in fiscal policy at Americans for Prosperity, a nonprofit organization that advocates for economic opportunity, fiscal responsibility, and limited government. His work focuses on solutions to federal and state budget and government challenges. He previously worked for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, as well as several other nonprofits, and as a House staffer. Ms. Brittany Madni. Ms. Madni is the executive vice president of the Economic Policy Innovation Center, a nonprofit organization that advocates for policies that promote freedom and prosperity. Prior to joining EPIC, she served in a variety of roles with members of the House and with the House Budget Committee. Mr. Brendan Duke. Mr. Duke is the senior director for federal fiscal policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonprofit organization that advocates for policies that expand economic opportunity and health security. He previously served as a senior policy advisor on the National Economic Council in the Biden-Harris administration. We thank our witnesses for appearing today, and we'll begin by swearing you in. Would you please rise and raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God? Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. Thank you, and you're already seated. Please know that your written testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you summarize your testimony in 5 minutes. Reminder to you have your microphones on before you begin. And with that, Mr. Walker, you may begin.

Mr. David M. WalkerSPEAKER_10

Chairman Roy, Ranking Member Scanlon, members of the Constitution Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important issue today. Let me start at the outset. The federal government's financial condition is much worse than advertised. Many people focus on the level of federal debt, which now exceeds $38 trillion. However, the debt is just the tip of our financial iceberg. Total federal liabilities and unfunded obligations exceed $125 trillion and are growing faster than the economy. Our current level of debt to GDP is 123%, which is greater than the end of World War II, but the difference is is at the end of World War II, it was coming down; now it's going up. Today, over 75% of the annual budget is on autopilot, mandatory spending. We've written a blank check. In addition, net interest is now the second-largest and fastest-growing expense in the federal budget, for which we get nothing. In my view, we must adopt a fiscal responsibility constitutional amendment if we want to restore and sustain fiscal sanity over time. A constitutional amendment is the only way to force Congress and the president to make the tough choices needed on both sides of the ledger in order to reduce overall debt burdens to a reasonable, lower level of debt to GDP over the next 10 to 15 years and have mechanisms in place to make sure that we do not spin out of control again. There are several approaches to taking to deal with that constitutional need. Some advocate for a traditional balanced budget approach, like the ones employed by the states. Others advocate for a principles-based balanced budget approach designed to achieve balance over a stated period of time. I and others prefer a debt-to-GDP-based approach, which is pro-growth and does not dictate to the Congress how to solve the numerator challenge, but it says you got to solve it. The latter two approaches have been used successfully by other countries. Importantly, irrespective of the approach that is employed, it must contain very limited exceptions and effective enforcement mechanisms. As you know, there are two ways to achieve a constitutional amendment under Article V of the Constitution. Two-thirds of the House and Senate can pass an identical proposed approach, and three-quarters of the states must ratify it. Alternatively, two-thirds of the states can file an application for a convention of states to propose one or more amendments to the Constitution, and Article V says the Congress shall call the convention. It is nondiscretionary ministerial duty, and then if the states can come up with an amendment, then three-quarters of the states have to ratify it. The Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation, which I chair, discovered over three years ago that enough states had filed applications for a convention dedicated solely to proposing a fiscal responsibility amendment as far back as 1979. Enough applications existed for 25 years and most recently in 2016 and 2017, and yet Congress failed to call the convention. Shockingly, the Congress never assigned responsibility to any party to receive, store, and count the applications until January of 2015, when it was assigned to this committee. To this committee's credit, it began steps to update its records earlier this year. The National Federalism Commission, which is an official interstate governmental body, worked with the committee to bring its records up to date, and they issued a report on Constitution Day of this year, which confirms what our foundation found, that there are enough applications existed, Congress should have called the convention many, many years ago. That was attended by Chairman Jodey Arrington, Budget Committee chair, the Honorable Bruce Lee, who is with us here today, who's head of the National Federalism Commission, and I spoke at that press briefing. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to enter into the record the National Federalism Commission's report and an illustrative call resolution.

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

Without objection.

Mr. David M. WalkerSPEAKER_10

Thank you. H.Con.Res. 15, which is sponsored by House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, is designed to right this wrong and to call the related limited convention. I expect the states will sue if the Congress fails to act within a reasonable period of time. This issue would then have to be addressed by the Supreme Court. If that happens, it would be the biggest federalism case in the history of this great nation. In closing, let me be clear: In my view, we must adopt a constitutional amendment if we want to restore and sustain fiscal sanity at the federal level. If the Congress can achieve the necessary support to pass a credible proposed amendment, then it should do so in a timely manner. If not, Congress needs to call a limited convention to propose a fiscal responsibility amendment and allow the states to exercise their constitutional right under Article V. Doing nothing is not an option. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

Thank you, Mr. Walker, for your testimony. Mr. Couchman, you may begin.

Mr. Kurt CouchmanSPEAKER_14

Chairman Roy, Ranking Member Scanlon, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to discuss balanced budget amendments to the Constitution and related statutory upgrades. I am senior fellow in fiscal policy at Americans for Prosperity. We are the premier grassroots advocacy organization transforming policy around the country to empower every American to pursue their version of the American dream. Congress should be the federal government's premier policymaking body. The best practices I'll discuss, including a BBA, are neutral, practical tools to help Congress improve budgeting, governance, and the exercise of legislative powers generally. Weak federal budgeting hurts us—higher inflation and interest rates, lower worker pay, polarized politics, and the risks of debt crisis and default. The budget process is usually just something to survive, not a robust and inclusive framework for considering trade-offs. Many countries and U.S. states have gotten into debt trouble and got back out with policies to reduce borrowing and with better governance, including debt constraints. Nearly all U.S. states and prosperous countries now have balanced budget rules. I'll discuss BBA design, statutory complements, and how the House passed a BBA in 1995. Most constitutional provisions are broad principles. Congress applies those principles to modern circumstances through normal legislation. Any new provision should apply indefinitely as well. Annual balance is the original sin of most BBA proposals. Revenue varies a lot from year to year, so locking spending, especially outlays, to revenue would mean major uncertainty or, more likely, push Congress to waive the rules a lot. Many BBAs try to compensate for annual balance but create other problems. A simpler BBA, such as the principles-based BBA from Representative Moran and Senator Husted, may attract the most consensus. It would, first, require balance, quote, "which may occur over more than one year"; second, let two-thirds of Congress approve emergency spending; and third, allow 10 years to reach full or primary balance after ratification. Primary balance requires about half as much deficit reduction as full balance. Implementing legislation for a principles-based BBA could start with Representative Emmer and then-Senator Braun's Responsible Budget Targets Act to support stable, predictable, neutral, and flexible policymaking. It would set up annual revenue-linked spending targets for structural primary balance, balancing the budget except interest over the medium term. Emergency spending would usually be offset over the following six years. The spending caps would adjust for automatic stabilizers, revenue changes, and more. Automatic enforcement would help Congress stay the course. Instead of the ineffective sequester model, however, a more sophisticated incremental approach would be more reasonable, politically sustainable, and binding. A real budget that includes all committees and empowers all members would help Congress meet targets and do so much more. In addition to appropriators diligently stewarding their 26% of spending, 16 committees responsible for direct spending and revenue, including this one, could manage their portfolios as well. Representative Blake Moore's Comprehensive Congressional Budget Act is a roadmap to effective annual budgeting. Finally, Representative Arrington and Panetta's Prevent Government Shutdowns Act would support a more bottom-up Congress that can more easily trim the fat. In 1995, the House of Representatives passed, and the Senate nearly passed, an annual balanced BBA. The special rule for the House floor set up a queen-of-the-hill competition. The most popular BBA would be the text for final passage. Substitute amendments began with more ideological versions and finished with the consensus BBA, that passed 300 to 132. Despite flaws, it failed by just one vote in the Senate. Better BBAs exist now, and reviving BBA competition on the House floor can show the way forward. A well-crafted BBA would encourage sound budgeting and would help Congress take up the additional tools to strengthen fiscal democracy. Thank you for the opportunity to share these thoughts, and I look forward to the discussion.

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Couchman. Ms. Madni, you may begin.

Ms. Brittany MadniSPEAKER_00

Chairman Roy, Ranking Member Scanlon, members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. It is a particular honor to be before this subcommittee, given the critical moment in our nation's conscience when we are called upon to address a growing fiscal crisis that threatens our constitutional prerogatives. We are $38.4 trillion in debt. To put this into context, our debt translates to approximately $288,000 per household across America. More than 60% of this total occurred over the past 18 years. We have added more debt during and since the Obama administration than over the prior 2 and 1/2 centuries, including the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and two world wars. This is wildly unsustainable. Our founding fathers would be aghast. They just fought a war because the Kingdom of Great Britain didn't know how to balance its books, and Mad King George wrongly thought that the solution would be to raise taxes on the colonies. I'll spoil the story for you. It didn't end well for the British or the tea drinkers. What the founding fathers learned in a tangible way is that debt is dangerous. It is dangerous because it removes the ability of the government to adjust in times of need or respond to an existential threat. It leads to squeezing the pocketbooks of the people beyond reason. It is inflationary. It is dangerous, perhaps most interestingly to the subcommittee, because it implies that government has gotten so large, so unwieldy, so involved in people's daily lives that the only way to sustain it is to bankrupt future generations, not only through excessive taxation, but through excessive intervention in personal lives. I want to tie the the committee's constitutional jurisdiction to its limited government jurisdiction by encouraging members to think holistically about a balanced budget amendment, not just as a means of balancing the budget on paper or staving off the debt crisis my colleague Dr. Paul Winfree warned us is coming, but most importantly, of making government spending match the people's priorities. This is inherently American, and it's inherently tied to the principles of limited government and individual liberty. We all know the federal budget is bloated. It's rife with waste, fraud, and abuse. For example, GAO recently reported that the federal government has made nearly $3 trillion in improper payments since 2003. Over just the past decade, we estimate that Medicaid alone issued more than $1 trillion in improper payments. Not all government waste or spending is blatantly corrupt or wasteful or fraudulent, though. Much of it is just not necessary, which means it's not necessary for Congress to take money from the American workers to fund. Is every dollar the federal government spends improving individual liberty within the bounds of limited government? This is the foundational budget question Madison reminds us to consider in Federalist 41. According to the Federal Register, there are 444 federal agencies right now, all funded by the taxpayer. Not only does all of that spending come out of Americans' paychecks, it often works against them with regulations and distortionary government subsidies. Given the purpose of our mission, balance must be designed for the sake of the people, not simply as an accounting mechanism. This year, the federal government will take $5.2 trillion in revenues from the American people and spend $7 trillion, passing $1.9 trillion in debt to future taxpayers. A major part of the problem is that mandatory spending has grown from 33% of outlays in 1964 to 73% in 2024. That means Congress does not actually review 73% of what it spends each year. It's on autopilot, and it's unacceptable. The cost of our debt is rising exponentially. Interest payments this year will equal $1.22 trillion, or $9,200 per household. Our $1.22 trillion interest payment is larger than the GDP of most countries. It's about the size of Saudi Arabia's entire economy. Our debt is out of control because spending is beyond reason. A balanced budget amendment would require lawmakers to regularly examine whether spending matches Americans' priorities or not. Why do I believe a balanced budget amendment is necessary? Because I was here a decade ago as a staffer, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, believing we could get this done. I was wrong. In early 2016, I was working for a member of this subcommittee, Mr. McClintock. He charged me with working on a memo on ways to restore budget discipline. I would like to read to you from that memo that he published in 2016 and sent to his colleagues. He said, The budget now before us, remember, this is 2016, spends $1.07 trillion, and balances in 2026. But only if we summon the discipline to stick to the budget in future years that has eluded us again this year. Maintaining budget discipline becomes particularly crucial given the deteriorating economic picture. Well, Congress certainly did not maintain budget discipline. It's 2026, and our deficit is not $0, but $2 trillion. So, a balanced budget amendment is an important safeguard for Congress to consider building into the Constitution itself. And you should consider three main priorities when doing so: One, do not abdicate your Article I powers. Two, remember that we have a spending problem, not a revenues problem. And three, it must have an effective enforcement mechanism. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Madni. Mr. Duke, you may begin.

Mr. Brendan DukeSPEAKER_16

Thank you, Chair Roy, Ranking Member Scanlon, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Brendan Duke, and I am senior director for federal budget policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. CBPP is a nonpartisan research and policy institute that advances federal and state policies to help build a nation where everyone has the resources they need to thrive and share in the nation's prosperity. Any constitutional amendment to require annual balanced budgets would be a highly ill-advised and risky way to address the nation's long-term fiscal problems. It would threaten significant economic harm while raising a host of problems for Social Security and Medicare. Let me first begin with an overview of our fiscal outlook. Analyses typically focus on government spending and revenue as shares of the economy. In 2024, revenue was 17% of GDP, which is around the same level as in 1984. Programmatic spending, on the other hand, grew 1.5 percentage points since 1984. But Social Security and Medicare are responsible for more than 100% of the increase in spending because the country has gotten older. That's nobody's fault. I'm sure everyone on this committee wishes they had the same knees or back they did 40 years ago. Similarly, we all wish we had the same demographics and ratio of working-age Americans to retirees that we had 40 years ago, but we don't. The combination of population aging and basic arithmetic means we will face a choice between raising revenue past the 17% of GDP level set when the country was much younger, or making drastic cuts to programs. The past several months have shown how much harm would be caused to vulnerable Americans and how difficult it would be if the government relied solely on massive spending cuts to balance the budget. The Trump administration has attempted, often illegally, to close whole agencies, engage in mass layoffs, and refuse to spend congressionally appropriated funds, with little or no savings to show for it. Similarly, the giant megabill passed this summer adds $3.4 trillion to the deficit as it extends tax cuts tilted to the wealthy, despite cutting SNAP and Medicaid by about 20% by 2034. This will cause millions of low-income families to lose the ability to afford the high cost of groceries or go to the doctor when they're sick, cuts that a vast majority of the public staunchly opposes. The retirement of the baby boom was a predictable and predicted development. But at the beginning of the 21st century, we had a fiscal system that would deliver adequate projected revenue to meet our needs. Rounds of unpaid-for tax cuts ruined that. Take a look at CBO projections for 2025 that were made right before most of the Bush tax cuts were made permanent in 2012, and before anyone even thought of the Trump tax cuts, and compare them to the actual 2025 values. The 2025 deficit is much higher than projected in 2012, despite programmatic spending being lower than projected. The reason the deficit rose is revenues come in far lower than projected as a result of those unpaid-for tax cuts. Importantly, Social Security, Medicare, and other health programs such as Medicaid and premium tax credits also came in below CBO's 2012 projections. What all this ultimately shows is it's entirely possible to meet our commitments to seniors, while ensuring millions of low- and moderate-income Americans have healthcare and can afford food, if we are willing to raise the revenue to do so. The most serious concern about a balanced budget amendment, aside from any cuts to critical programs, is it would exacerbate and prolong recessions. During economic downturns, consumers and businesses spend less, which in turn causes further job loss. The drop in tax collections and increases in unemployment insurance and other benefits that occur automatically cushion the blow to the overall economy and individuals involved by keeping purchases of goods and services from falling more. A constitutional balanced budget amendment, however, effectively suspends this automatic stabilization. That would launch a vicious spiral. A weak economy would lead to higher deficits, forcing more spending cuts and tax hikes, which would weaken the economy further. It would also be unconstitutional for Social Security and Medicare to draw down their reserves to pay promised benefits without running a surplus in the rest of the government, because that's still deficit spending, spending money that was not collected in the same year. So we would immediately, likely face their funding cliffs now instead of in the 2030s. In other words, a balanced budget amendment would serve as an effective back-door way to immediately cut Social Security and Medicare benefits. Rather than spend time on an unworkable and economically calamitous amendment to the Constitution, policymakers should focus on policies that improve the fiscal trajectory, while meeting the public's wise priorities about what government should do. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

Thank you, Mr. Duke. We will now proceed under the five-minute rule with questions. I'll now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock.

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA)SPEAKER_08

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Democrats spent quite a bit of time telling us the debt's ballooned because of Republican tax cuts. Let me put their concerns to rest. Three numbers tell you everything you need to know about the federal deficit: 46%, 64%, and 94%. The Democrats blame excessive spend 46%, by the way, is the percentage of increase in inflation and population combined over the last 10 years, 46% increase of inflation and population. 64% is the increase in revenues in the same period. That's after the Trump tax cuts, after the big, beautiful bill. We're taking in 64% more revenue than 10 years ago with only a 46% increase of inflation and population. The third number is what's killing us, 94. That's the increase in spending in the same period. The Democrats like to blame Republicans for excessive spending, but the only opposition I have ever heard from the Democrats on spending issues is that we're not spending enough money fast enough. At the end of World War II, our nation staggered under a similar debt relative to GDP that we have today, as Mr. Walker noted. We'd exhausted our resources then fighting the most terrible war in human history. And question occurs, how do we get out of that? Well, not by tax increases, as the Democrats proposed. Quite the contrary. In fiscal year 1946, Democrat Harry Truman cut the federal budget from $85 billion a year down to $30 billion a year, almost two-thirds. He slashed federal income tax rates. He abolished the excess profits tax. He fired 10 million federal employees. It was called war demobilization. The Keynesians at the time predicted a 25% unemployment rate in a second Great Depression. Instead, we had the postwar economic boom. So we already know how to fix the economy. The problem is summoning the discipline to do so.

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

Um,

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA)SPEAKER_08

For the last eight sessions, I've introduced a constitutional amendment on this subject. It's 27 simple words: The United States government may not increase its debt except for a specific purpose by legislation adopted by three-fourths of the membership of both houses of Congress. To me, that is the simplest way of addressing the issue and is essentially what Thomas Jefferson had suggested we needed in the Constitution at the time of its adoption. Such an amendment, taking effect 10 years from ratification, would naturally require both a balanced budget and a prudent reserve to accommodate fluctuations of revenues and routine contingencies. It would trust that three-fourths of Congress will be able to recognize a genuine emergency when it sees one, and that one-fourth of Congress will be strong enough to resist borrowing for lighter, transient reasons. But whether it is this or some other mechanism, it seems to me that it's absolutely crucial. Now, we have a modern-day example of this, and that's Switzerland. Switzerland adopted a debt brake in its constitution almost 25 years ago. 85% of Swiss voters approved it, and today, Switzerland's total debt is 30% of GDP. Mr. Walker, what is the percentage today in the United States?

Mr. David M. WalkerSPEAKER_10

Well, debt held by the public is about 100%, but if you take the total debt, which includes the debt held by the trust funds,

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA)SPEAKER_08

yeah,

Mr. David M. WalkerSPEAKER_10

it's 123% and rising. And as you properly pointed out, we were going down after World War II. We're now going up, and we're not at war

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA)SPEAKER_08

because we cut spending dramatically and we cut taxes, and that produced an economic expansion, as it did under Democrat John F. Kennedy, and as it did under Republican Ronald Reagan and Republican Donald Trump. So anyway, 100%, just debt held by the public, 100%. Switzerland is 30%, and Switzerland is running a slight budget surplus this year, I understand. What are we to take away from this experience?

Mr. David M. WalkerSPEAKER_10

Well, Switzerland and certain other countries, including Germany and Sweden, have recognized that they need a constitutional constraint in order to maintain fiscal sanity.

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA)SPEAKER_08

And I

Mr. David M. WalkerSPEAKER_10

Might note the debt ceiling is a bad joke. It's not done nothing to be able to constrain the growth of government or mounting debt burdens. It's a political football. And statutory approaches to try to be able to bring fiscal discipline, whether it be Gramm-Rudman or anything else, have not stood the test of time. The only thing that can bind current and future Congresses and presidents is is a constitutional amendment. And remember what Washington said, among other things: avoid excessive debt. We have not, we have not heeded his warning.

Mr. Kurt CouchmanSPEAKER_14

Thank you.

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

Thank you, gentleman from California. I'll now recognize the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Raskin.

Full Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD)SPEAKER_18

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And yes, it was Democrat Harry Truman who did all that, who made the requisite cuts in federal spending after World War II, and it was Democrat Bill Clinton who gave us record surpluses in the 1990s. All of this is possible with the proper political focus and discipline. Mr. Duke, say you've got a lawless president who wages war without a congressional declaration of war, takes emoluments from foreign kings and princes and governments without congressional consent, impounds money appropriated by Congress for certain purposes and uses them illegally for other unauthorized purposes. Is there anything in the proposals for a balanced budget constitutional amendment that would prevent a reckless president who disregards the Constitution from bulldozing the budget and just going right through those barriers and spending us into oblivion?

Mr. Brendan DukeSPEAKER_16

Not that I have seen.

Full Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD)SPEAKER_18

So if there's not any real constitutional guardrail there, it seems to me like this is symbolic politics, a kind of window dressing to cover up the fact that people just have not had the political discipline and will to balance the budget. Is it true that, as in the case raised by the gentleman from California with President Truman and President Clinton, is it true that the budget deficits have gone down more under Democratic presidents, and the budget has been balanced more often than it has been with Republican presidents,

Mr. Brendan DukeSPEAKER_16

certainly in the postwar period.

Full Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD)SPEAKER_18

Okay, so what is it that we should be doing in order to get our friends focused on actually balancing the budget and not adding trillions to the debt as President Trump did in his first administration and as he's been doing again with the massive tax break to the wealthy?

Mr. Brendan DukeSPEAKER_16

So the first best would be to get into a time machine and not do the bill that they passed last July, so that would be the first best. Second best would be repealing it and starting from scratch. So I think that would be where we could start. One idea, for example, there was that you could cut the cost of the expiring tax cuts in half by just not extending them for households making over $400,000. Then you could offset that cost, the $2 trillion remaining cost for the tax cuts under $400,000, by raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations. So that's just one approach for dealing with the fiscal cliff that basically President Trump and the Republican Congress set up in 2017.

Full Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD)SPEAKER_18

Well, what do you make of the notion that President Trump's tariffs, which may be struck down as unconstitutional, of course, but that, in the meantime, they will make up the problems in the federal budget deficit for us? They will reduce the deficit. Does that make sense?

Mr. Brendan DukeSPEAKER_16

Yeah. Look, they're big and they are raising real money. CBO thinks they raise about $2.5 trillion, which is less than the $3.4 trillion cost of one big, beautiful bill. But I note that to the extent to which Donald Trump has done any sort of work on deficit reduction, the cuts to SNAP and Medicaid, as large as they are, are smaller than the increases in tariffs, which shows that even President Trump is kind of admitting that revenue is the solution here. We should just have smarter taxes than ones that cause people to pay more at Costco and Walmart and ask the wealthy to pay their fair share instead of doing illegal tariffs.

Full Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD)SPEAKER_18

Yeah, what do you think about the notion that we should have an Article V constitutional convention to pass this balanced budget amendment?

Mr. Brendan DukeSPEAKER_16

I think you put it best yourself. Why go through that rigmarole? And why can't Congress and the president just do that right now? They have the power to do it.

Full Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD)SPEAKER_18

Aren't there special dangers with causing or calling an Article V constitutional convention? We of course haven't had an Article V convention. We've always done it by a two-thirds vote in the House and the Senate and three-quarters of the states ratifying. Calling a constitutional convention like the one we had in Philadelphia would lead to potentially every other manner of amendment that our colleagues have favored, including an anti-constitutional-choice human life amendment, a school prayer amendment, a flag desecration amendment, and so on. Would there be any way to control it, once we're back in the Rawlsian original position of a constitutional convention?

Mr. Brendan DukeSPEAKER_16

No, I think it's a whole bag of worms.

Full Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD)SPEAKER_18

Well, thank you for that. And I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

Thank Ranking Member Raskin. I'll now recognize the gentleman from Kentucky for 5 minutes.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY)SPEAKER_07

I, i'm all for balanced budgets. I built this debt badge and I wear it to try and instill at least some sense of urgency among my colleagues. I gave one to every freshman member of Congress, and the only member who wears one is a Democrat because he wants to show how much the debt's going up under the Republicans. And he has a fair point. I think the Balanced Budget Amendment is one of those things that sounds good on the surface, but it's the exceptions that are written into it that get you. In fact, I voted against the Balanced Budget Amendment when it came to the floor several years ago, and I'll tell you why. It said that if Congress, if both chambers of Congress vote with at least 60% of the members, they can undo the Balanced Budget Amendment. That was the exception. Well, just a few legislative days prior to voting on the Balanced Budget Amendment, we had just passed an omnibus with over 60% of the House voting for it and obviously over 60% of the Senate voting for it. So when Mr. Biggs, our colleague on the Judiciary Committee, offered a balanced budget amendment, he suggested the threshold should be two-thirds. So I went back and looked from 2016 until 2026 at all the CRs that have passed the House and the Senate and all the omnibus bills that have passed the House and the Senate, and it turns out that 11 of the 16 CRs passed with more than two-thirds vote in the House, and 14 of the 16 CRs passed with more than two-thirds vote in the Senate. The results are similar for the omnibus bills. But I believe my colleague here, Mr. McClintock, has suggested a three-quarters threshold. So what does a three-quarters threshold get you? Well, in 2024, the CR passed with 77% of the House and 77% of the House, and the next CR, 72% of the House, 74% of the House, 78% of the House. And finally, in 2025, not too long ago here, the American Relief Act, the second CR of 2025, 84% of the House voted for that. That sucker wasn't balanced. What about in the Senate? 85%. There's literally almost no threshold you could put in there that they couldn't override and haven't overridden already. So, Mr. Walker, do you want to address that?

Mr. David M. WalkerSPEAKER_10

Yes. Thank you, sir. Number one, you have to define what type of unexpected events can cause there to be a potential exception to the rule. And then you have to have a high enough threshold combined with those unexpected events to be able to limit it. And in addition to that, you have to say it's for year-by-year. In other words, you don't just get a pass; it's year-by-year. With regard to the convention, this is not a constitutional convention. The Federalist Papers make it very clear that the founders intended there to be Article V limited conventions. There are several safeguards to deal with your question, Mr. Raskin. Number one, a majority of the applications back in '79 and today are fiscal responsibility only. There's state delegate legis--

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY)SPEAKER_07

Let me follow up, Mr. Walker. Sorry.

Mr. David M. WalkerSPEAKER_10

Yes, sir.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY)SPEAKER_07

On something you said, that you have to specify the exemptions, and one of those is war, I have tongue-in-cheek remarked that at least this would get Congress to declare wars again, because there's an exception if you declare war. This gives me some concern, because I've watched them play budget gimmicks here with something called OCO, overseas contingency operation. It's supposed to be for emergencies or for things that came up, contingencies not expected, but they have used it to fund the basic defense of the United States, to replenish stockpiles and whatnot. And I'm— forgive me if I'm very suspicious of specific exemptions, because I've seen those— they were statutory, not constitutional, but I've seen them abused here in the House of Representatives. I think the only thing that really works is you've got to elect people who are serious about balancing the budget. The the result of the big, beautiful bill, and the CR, and everything that's passed since then is that this year we've increased spending $200 billion. And next year we'll increase spending over more than $200 billion. But, my colleagues are— my Republican colleagues, and especially my Democrat colleagues— but this whole place is unserious about balancing the budget. And if you give them any exemption, they'll use it. And the reason, honestly, they're not that serious about it is because they can get reelected every time by telling people they can cut their taxes and increase spending and things are going to turn out fine. Well, that is not the case. And with that, I see my time has expired.

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

Uh, with that, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky, and I'll now recognize the gentlelady from Washington.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)SPEAKER_12

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I love following Thomas Massie because he's very consistent, and I appreciate that because we can disagree on a whole host of things, but if you're consistent, it makes sense. I just find it really interesting that we're spending our time in the Constitution Subcommittee talking about a balanced budget amendment right after everyone on the other side, except for Mr. Massie, voted for a bill that dramatically increased the national debt. And so I think there's lots of other things that this committee should be working on rather than this. And the last time I think the the ranking member of the full committee said this. The last time there was a balanced budget was in the 1990s under a Democratic president, Bill Clinton. And that was achieved both by increasing taxes and revenue, taxes on the wealthiest and revenue, and decreasing spending, cutting defense spending. This last big, beautiful betrayal bill actually did the opposite. It reduced revenue by giving massive tax breaks to billionaires and corporations, and it increased defense spending. And it did all of that on the backs of cutting healthcare for tens of millions of Americans. So when we talk about this issue, I think we should remember that in his first term, President Trump followed Republican presidents like George W. Bush. He increased defense spending. He passed steep tax cuts for billionaires and corporations under his 2017 tax scam. In fact, in 2023, Americans for Tax Fairness reported that the richest 748 Americans' wealth topped a record high $5 trillion, up 77% since those tax cuts were passed, and that the debt caused by those Trump tax cuts were then used by Republicans as an excuse to cut services. And then this year, instead of letting those tax cuts for the wealthiest expire, what did Republicans do? They made those tax cuts permanent and then added some more in. So that gave the wealthiest Americans another $5 trillion in tax giveaways. And as I mentioned, defense spending went up by another $150 billion, more enormous amounts of money poured into the Department of Homeland Security to send all these masked ICE agents into our streets to kidnap and deport people, and terrorize communities, and give massive profits to for-profit detention centers. That bill, the big, bad betrayal bill is what I call it, betrayal of the American people, betrayal of working families, increased the deficit by $3.4 trillion over the next 10 years on the backs of working families, while slashing $1.1 trillion from Medicaid, food assistance, other critical health programs. And now Republicans have refused to extend the ACA tax credits so 22 million Americans can afford health insurance, even though doing so would cost less than 4% of the cost of the tax cuts for the for the wealthiest. So just make this make sense for me. I'm going to turn to you, Mr. Duke. Deficits are made up of two parts, right?

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

Is

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)SPEAKER_12

that

Mr. Brendan DukeSPEAKER_16

correct? That is correct.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)SPEAKER_12

Revenues and expenses.

Mr. Brendan DukeSPEAKER_16

You got them.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)SPEAKER_12

Okay. Just wanted to make sure. Can the balanced budget— can a balanced budget be achieved by the federal government just by decreasing spending?

Mr. Brendan DukeSPEAKER_16

It could be done mathematically by dramatically increasing poverty, causing millions of Americans to lose health insurance and not be able to afford groceries. So it's mathematically possible, but it's very unwise.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)SPEAKER_12

And do we need—to Mr. Massie point, do we need a constitutional amendment to create a balanced budget?

Mr. Brendan DukeSPEAKER_16

Bill Clinton certainly didn't.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)SPEAKER_12

Bill Clinton didn't. And yet Republicans have done the exact opposite. As I mentioned, they've increased the deficit, handed out tax breaks, and now they want a—this is really rich—a supermajority vote to increase revenue or raise the debt limit, but not a supermajority vote to decrease revenue or lower the debt limit. So what effect would this one-way ratchet have on the payment of federal benefits like Social Security?

Mr. Brendan DukeSPEAKER_16

Sure. So anytime a Congress comes that wants to cut spending, they can do it. And any Congress that then tries to reverse it by raising revenue would not be able to do it. So it would be a one-way ratchet where benefits, services, eventually Social Security and Medicare find themselves on the chopping block because there's just not much room left.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)SPEAKER_12

People feel like this is a rigged economy because it is a rigged economy. It is rigged for the wealthiest, and people across the country are seeing this now. That's why Donald Trump's poll ratings are as low as they've ever been in this term and almost as low as right after January 6th, because people can't afford health insurance, they can't afford basic food, they can't afford to live, and meanwhile, a very small group of people at the top are just having it big. And this is just another way to continue that cycle. I oppose it, and I yield back.

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

Thank the gentlelady from Washington. I'll now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina.

Rep. Mark Harris (R-NC)SPEAKER_09

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all of you on the panel for your expertise and for being a part of this hearing, a very, very important issue that I think a lot of us have talked about and shared for a long time. We all know that unsustainable debt has placed this country on a collision course with financial disaster and that a balanced budget amendment might save us from that fate. And I would really like to hear our witnesses on what factors they think make a strong balanced budget amendment that does not bear any unintended consequences. As a freshman here, I've had the opportunity to look at six different constitutional amendments that have been introduced in this 119th Congress, and I want to start by addressing the issue of when a balanced budget ought to take effect. And Mr. Couchman, what are the pros of a balanced budget amendment taking effect for the budget year immediately after it's ratified?

Mr. Kurt CouchmanSPEAKER_14

To require a balance of the budget immediately would require relatively large changes in spending and revenue policies. It would not give people as much time to adapt and plan, which is why I recommend, uh, 10 years, a glide path of 10 years after ratification, which would probably take 2 to 3 years.

Rep. Mark Harris (R-NC)SPEAKER_09

Okay. And because I understand of the, of the 6 that have been introduced, Only one gives Congress time to, to pass the balanced budget, and the other 5 require Congress to pass the balanced budget the fiscal year after the amendment's adopted. Um, and some balanced budget amendments have provisions that allow deficit spending during a declared war, national security threats, or natural disasters. And Mr. Couchman, should a balanced budget amendment contain these exceptions, in your opinion?

Mr. Kurt CouchmanSPEAKER_14

Yes, sir. Every balanced budget requirement or debt limit requirement must have a safety valve. There are emergencies of many types that come up. Uh, 2/3 is the standard supermajority for congressional action in the Constitution. Uh, 3/4 does apply, but that's only in the context of ratifying proposed amendments.

Rep. Mark Harris (R-NC)SPEAKER_09

Okay. And Mr. Walker, what about you?

Mr. David M. WalkerSPEAKER_10

Clearly, it cannot be effective immediately. In my view, I prefer a debt-to-GDP approach where you do two things: one, you set a credit card limit which is constitutional, not the debt ceiling, which is a bad joke; secondly, you have a target of lower debt-to-GDP than today, because we're already too high, 10 to 15 years out, with specific targets, triggers to be able to make sure that we get there. But doing it immediately makes no sense. We need to really have a phased-in approach.

Rep. Mark Harris (R-NC)SPEAKER_09

Okay. And we all know, and this has already been alluded to today, that there are two ways to balance the budget: raise taxes or cut spending. And, Ms. Madni, you— could you explain? You made a great point in your opening comments about the spending, not revenue, is a problem that needs to be addressed. Can you expand on that a little more?

Ms. Brittany MadniSPEAKER_00

Absolutely, sir. I think that the answer is quite simple. When we're looking at the math, we know that revenues are not catching up to where we are in terms of outlays. To me, that indicates that the federal government is spending more than we bring in. Every constituent that you have sits around their dinner table and is expected to balance their budget and figure out what they can actually spend within their means. We are quite simply not doing that as a country, and the result of that is that our deficit is ballooning. We're increasing our debt year after year. There are several instances of rampant waste that I think that the average American would be astounded to learn about. For example, there are several billion dollars worth of waste going to things like green energy projects in Honduras, climate resilience in Honduras. I think it's about $24 million. Simple items like this actually do stack up. And then when you start to think about the last major welfare reform, which your colleague, Ms. Jayapal, pointed out was a significant part of Mr.— of the president's 1996 balance, what you see there is that he actually did also contribute significant energy to reducing spending. It has to be a part of the picture. Then, it was about $100 billion in today's dollars worth of spending cut to welfare. Now, in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, about $1 trillion of that is what we're seeing. And it's really important to note that Medicaid is still growing after the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. There's a significant impact. In fact, it grows 31% even after the reforms in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. So it's not that revenues are the problem. It's that the spending trajectory of the country is continuing to go far beyond the pace of what we could ever bring in.

Rep. Mark Harris (R-NC)SPEAKER_09

Gotcha. Well, thank you very much. And I think we saw some of that in the first few months of this administration when DOGE began to do its work, where the American public was rising up and saying that these cuts were something that needed to happen. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

Thank you, gentleman from North Carolina. I'll now recognize the gentleman from Colorado.

Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO)SPEAKER_15

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for convening this hearing. Thank you to all the witnesses for your testimony, both written and your answers to the questions that have been propounded so far. Ms. Madni, I wasn't planning on asking this question of you, but I want to follow up on the comment that you made just recently, and I think your summation kind of focus on spending. Every academic, every economist that I have come across in the last 6 months have all agreed that the Republican tax bill, the so-called big beautiful bill, increased the deficit. I assume you don't dispute that. Actually, let me read this to you, then you can you can answer. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, right, has estimated that that bill will add three— or excuse me, $2.4 trillion to primary deficits over the next decade and $3 trillion to the deficit, including interest. So do you contest that?

Ms. Brittany MadniSPEAKER_00

Thank you for your question, sir. I actually reject the premise of this question because when you're adding to the deficit, you also have to think about what are the mechanisms doing so. As I mentioned in my opening statement, it's not just about balance on paper. This is not a simple accounting mechanism. Them. You also have to take into account the economic impacts of the choices Congress is making. Sure.

Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO)SPEAKER_15

So I understand that argument. Republicans on the dais here have made that argument. What you are essentially saying is that Elon Musk, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Mr. Massie, any Republican critics in good faith of this bill are wrong, that this calculation that the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has delineated and produced is inaccurate and incorrect. And I don't know how you can make that argument. I suspect that your colleagues here sitting alongside you would not make that argument, but maybe I'm wrong. Mr. Couchman, I assume you're not. I have seen some of your material previously in which you have amplified the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. I don't think you've taken issue with them in the past. You don't. Do you contest their analysis here? They're wrong.

Mr. Kurt CouchmanSPEAKER_14

I worked at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget before this, and there are times that I agree with them and sometimes I disagree. On this matter, it really comes down to how you think about the statutory baseline and whether you think that was realistic. And as we saw from the bond market, the public, and policymakers, that was not an accurate reflection of where folks expected revenue policy. So

Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO)SPEAKER_15

how far off are they? $2.4 trillion over the next decade. What's your— you're saying that this bill didn't increase Wouldn't— will not increase

Mr. Kurt CouchmanSPEAKER_14

relative to the statutory baseline, yes, but relative to what the bond markets and policymakers were projecting, no, it actually decreased deficits. Vice President Harris proposed extending most of these tax provisions as well to prevent the largest tax increase on the American people in history.

Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO)SPEAKER_15

Well, I think again that it is rich, in my view, for organizations who predicate their existence on making the case for deficit-neutral policies and for decreasing the debt, so on and so forth, to enthusiastically endorse a bill in which a variety of experts, including conservative ones, all attest that that particular legislation actually increases the deficit. It is quite convenient now for Americans for Prosperity, just by way of example, to now conclude that the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is wrong and that in the case of Trump's so-called big, beautiful bill, no, you've you've called it incorrectly. This, in fact, decreases the deficit. I just I think that that argument is disingenuous, frankly, sir. I really In any event, you're entitled to your opinion, obviously. But I concur with Mr. Massie, and I applaud Mr. Massie for having the courage among Republicans to actually make an intellectually honest argument and to stand by his principles and vote against the bill because of what it will do to the deficit. So, again, that's my view.

Mr. Kurt CouchmanSPEAKER_14

Sound budgeting is important to American prosperity. There's no question about it. What was that? Sound budgeting is important to American prosperity. It

Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO)SPEAKER_15

doesn't feel like it. If it was important to you all, then you would have opposed this bill. You would have said, You know what? We ought to make the case for an extension of these various, different tax credits and tax breaks that were embedded in that bill. But supporting the bill wholesale, I just I think your colleagues at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget—your former colleagues, I should say—I suspect that they're very disappointed because I think that they put forward a very honest treatise on this bill's impact. And I can see that your colleague here, Mr. Walker, would like to jump in. So

Mr. David M. WalkerSPEAKER_10

I used to be on the board of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Sure. It all depends upon what assumptions you use, but there are more people that believe that it added to the deficit than not. Okay. Correct. And let me just note that things— I

Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO)SPEAKER_15

appreciate you conceding reality, sir. That's right. I mean, that's all I was asking of the other 2 witnesses.

Mr. David M. WalkerSPEAKER_10

One last thing. Things have been out of control since 2002.

Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO)SPEAKER_15

Sure.

Mr. David M. WalkerSPEAKER_10

And both parties have controlled the Congress since 2002, and both parties have had presidents since 2002.

Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO)SPEAKER_15

I hear

Mr. David M. WalkerSPEAKER_10

you. This is a bipartisan problem.

Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO)SPEAKER_15

But here's the difference, Mr. Walker, and I appreciate that candor, and I appreciate the chairman's indulgence for just a few seconds, because I completely appreciate that point. And you, sir, have spent a great deal of time in your career making the case that both parties have to ultimately help bring their fiscal house into order. The issue I take umbrage with are witnesses who advocate solely on the basis that Democrats are responsible, and they do that simultaneous to supporting a bill that increases the deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next decade so that my daughter and future generations to come are saddled with debt for the next 25 years. In any event, I digress. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

I thank the gentleman from Colorado. I will now recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Onder.

Rep. Robert Onder (R-MO)SPEAKER_06

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all the witnesses for being here today. Republicans have warned for years about the dangers of unchecked federal spending, but because of the Biden administration's unprecedented spending spree and the Democrats' refusal to return spending to pre-COVID levels, even after adjusting for inflation, we're now at a defining crossroad. This first chart shows a simple overview of our federal debt-to-GDP ratio. Within just a few years, debt held by the public will surpass, suppress every previous record in our nation's history, even the levels reached during during World War II. Here we are. We're up here at World War II levels of debt-to-GDP ratio. The second chart breaks down the annual federal spending by category. One one change that I believe should alarm every American is down here in the orange at about 6:00, 7:00, is the slice of our federal budget that is devoted to paying interest on our debt. We're now at 13%. So, at $881 billion, which I think is even—it's even larger than that today, that exceeds the defense budget. It exceeds Medicare and the ACA, and it—I'm sorry, Medicaid and the ACA, and it exceeds Medicare. This is this is truly a warning sign. 2 years ago, yeah, 2 years ago, we passed up the defense budget in our interest spending. Just a few questions. Ms. Madni, you mentioned Medicaid spending increasing even after the One Big Beautiful Bill and the reforms there, such as removing, requiring work work, keeping illegal aliens off of welfare, checking eligibility. I believe we really should keep that in mind as we as we think about extending enhanced COVID ACA credits 2.5 years after the official end of COVID. Could you could you explain how how our growing deficit and debt is is affecting—I believe Mr. Walker pointed out that Moody's downgraded America's credit rating this year. Can you explain how the growing debt and deficit crisis affect our credit rating?

Ms. Brittany MadniSPEAKER_00

Sure, absolutely. I'll take the first question first, and we'll go from there. Keep me on track if I miss something from you. Yes, to go back to your question on Medicaid spending after OBBB, following the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, I would just say that to describe Medicaid reforms included in that bill as cuts, that's just Washington math, plain and simple.

Rep. Robert Onder (R-MO)SPEAKER_06

Only in D.C. does continued increasing spending constitute a cut.

Ms. Brittany MadniSPEAKER_00

Absolutely. In fiscal year 2024, we were spending $618 billion on Medicaid. A 31% increase over the budget window after the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would get us to $807 billion. So that's actually nearly double what our Medicaid spend was from the pre-COVID level of $409 billion. So that's

Rep. Robert Onder (R-MO)SPEAKER_06

So it's just factually wrong, correct, that we cut Medicaid in the One Big Beautiful Bill?

Ms. Brittany MadniSPEAKER_00

That's correct.

Rep. Robert Onder (R-MO)SPEAKER_06

no matter what the Democrats tell us, no matter what the hospital lobbyists tell us. Yeah,

Ms. Brittany MadniSPEAKER_00

if you believe that math is math, yes, you are right,

Rep. Robert Onder (R-MO)SPEAKER_06

right.

Ms. Brittany MadniSPEAKER_00

I think that it's also important that we talk a little bit about the other part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act because I was criticized by by your colleague and I didn't have a chance to respond here. When I say that I reject the premise that the tax cuts included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act don't increase the deficit, what I was trying to tell the congressman is that those are not new tax cuts,

Rep. Robert Onder (R-MO)SPEAKER_06

right?

Ms. Brittany MadniSPEAKER_00

These are things that the American people are already experiencing. So what the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will do is prevent a tax hike on the American people.

Rep. Robert Onder (R-MO)SPEAKER_06

Exactly. And, you know, and I think sometimes to some extent we Republicans in our messaging, largest tax cut in American history, that's not exactly true. What we did is prevented a multitrillion-dollar tax increase, which is what my Democrat colleagues seem to advocate.

Ms. Brittany MadniSPEAKER_00

That's correct, sir.

Rep. Robert Onder (R-MO)SPEAKER_06

Okay.

Ms. Brittany MadniSPEAKER_00

And then you asked me as well, uh, I recognize you only have a few seconds left.

Rep. Robert Onder (R-MO)SPEAKER_06

Go

Ms. Brittany MadniSPEAKER_00

ahead. You asked me as well about how our interest payments are negatively impacting our standing in terms of our credit. Well, that couldn't be more clear. You pointed out that our interest payments are outpacing our payments for defense. They're outpacing our economy. They're outpacing everything that's sustainable. We're making a $1.22 trillion interest payment in the next fiscal year, and that alone, as I mentioned at the, at the beginning of this Congress, is larger than the GDP GDPs of every country in the world except for 16, excepting the United States, of course. That's going to naturally have an impact when credit rating agencies are considering whether or not we can actually meet our obligations.

Rep. Robert Onder (R-MO)SPEAKER_06

And no wonder young people can't afford to buy, to buy homes, because they're competing with the federal government for borrowing. Thank you very much for your testimony. I yield back.

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

gentleman from Missouri, and now recognize the gentlelady from Vermont.

Rep. Becca Balint (D-VT)SPEAKER_13

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're talking today about a constitutional requirement that spending has to equal revenue. But what Republicans are not saying, but which we all know, is that this means you're going to have to cut Social Security, Medicare, food assistance, and other programs that regular people rely on. And as a member of the Budget Committee, I have spent 3 years, 3 years on conversations like this. And all the while watching Republicans continue to balloon the national debt to finance tax cuts for people who don't actually need them. Can we all finally admit, once and for all, that tax cuts do not trickle down? And all you have to do is ask regular people who can't afford their groceries right now. Mr. Duke, thanks so much for being here. I want to talk about what Republicans mean when they talk about a balanced budget amendment. From my perspective, they mean that you're going to have to make steep cuts to benefits while rewarding the wealthy with additional tax cuts. And a balanced budget amendment always sounds so simple, but the federal budget is not actually like a household budget. It's not. It doesn't matter how many times we say it, it's not. Mr. Duke, is it possible that this proposed constitutional requirement would endanger Social Security?

Mr. Brendan DukeSPEAKER_16

Absolutely it would.

Rep. Becca Balint (D-VT)SPEAKER_13

Tell me a little bit more. How would it do that?

Mr. Brendan DukeSPEAKER_16

So, we have the baby boomers. They worked a bunch of years, they put—and that created surpluses into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, right? And now we are drawing them down as they're retired, and those trust funds are scheduled to exhaust in the 2030s. But a balanced budget amendment would apply to the whole government. And those accumulated surpluses from 10, 15 years ago wouldn't count anymore, right? So, basically, what would need to happen for Social Security and Medicare to continue to pay 100% benefits is you would need to run a bigger surplus in the rest of the government, right? Which is really, really, really hard to do and frankly not realistic, right? Yeah. And so Social Security just can't tap its trust fund, and so that basically moves the problem we are going to face 10 years from now about Social Security and Medicare trust funds exhausting from the 2030s to now.

Rep. Becca Balint (D-VT)SPEAKER_13

Yeah. And it's very serious. And I can think of a simpler way to protect essential programs like Social Security. Is it true that we could just raise taxes on billionaires and corporations?

Mr. Brendan DukeSPEAKER_16

That certainly would be one way to— Yeah, it's an option. It certainly is an option. It's

Rep. Becca Balint (D-VT)SPEAKER_13

on the table. We already have that power. Is that right?

Mr. Brendan DukeSPEAKER_16

According to Article I, yes.

Rep. Becca Balint (D-VT)SPEAKER_13

Yes, exactly. According to Article I. And I'm going to get to that in just a minute. What worries me so seriously about this conversation is that this whole concept of a balanced budget amendment requires us to actually support the Constitution that we have. You can't have this amendment if you don't have respect for the separation of powers, if you don't have respect for the powers of the purse, if you don't have respect for the Constitution as a whole. And under this Republican government, none of these things currently exist. My Republican colleagues have completely given up Congress's Article I powers, letting the president do whatever he wants. They have stepped back and let the executive branch run wild. We have invoked the Founders a lot today, and I can tell you they would be disgusted by the majority's willingness to cede their power to this president. President Trump and congressional Republicans have completely abandoned constitutional governance by three coequal branches. They have allowed the president to illegally refuse to spend money as directed by Congress. They have conducted absolutely zero oversight of misconduct and open corruption across the agencies and the White House. We just spent a month out of session because the speaker would not stand up to our president and protect our Article I powers. Why do I care so much about the Article I powers? It's not because of our power. It's because we represent the people. We represent the people who want us to pass those policies that actually benefit them. And we don't have that right now. So this whole conversation about going through this rigmarole of an idea that has a snowball's chance in hell of ever coming to fruition when we could actually spend our time here protecting our Article I powers. I appreciate you being here. I appreciate all the witnesses. I yield back.

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

Thank the gentlelady from Vermont. I'll now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI)SPEAKER_02

First of all, I'd like to thank you very much for holding this hearing. We're kind of in the middle of appropriation bills here, and it's shocking the degree to which my colleagues think that were running huge surpluses rather than we have to deal with deficits. So it'd be nice if we get a balanced budget out of this, but at a minimum, we can educate our colleagues as to what a dire situation we are in. Ms. Madni, we'll ask you a few questions as to where this ship is headed. Do you know approximately right now—maybe it's unfair to ask you without checking there—the percentage of our budget that's borrowed?

Ms. Brittany MadniSPEAKER_00

I'm sorry, sir, what? The

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI)SPEAKER_02

percentage of our budget that's borrowed?

Ms. Brittany MadniSPEAKER_00

That's powered?

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI)SPEAKER_02

Borrowed.

Ms. Brittany MadniSPEAKER_00

Borrowed. Oh, borrowed. I apologize, I couldn't quite hear you. Um, far too much. Uh, I think if you just look at our interest payments, that's really what you need to start thinking about in terms of what we're borrowing. Our deficit spend, um, is $1.9 trillion.

Mr. Kurt CouchmanSPEAKER_14

About a quarter of revenue is borrowed,

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI)SPEAKER_02

right? 26%, which is kind of shocking. Do you know how much we're spending on percentage of all, of all of our budget? How much is already not on new neat stuff but just paying interest on the debt we have?

Ms. Brittany MadniSPEAKER_00

The percentage for interest only, you're saying?

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI)SPEAKER_02

Yeah. Percentage of—

Ms. Brittany MadniSPEAKER_00

yes, sir. So the percentage that we're paying on interest is 13%.

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI)SPEAKER_02

Okay, so about a seventh of our budget already is going not to Social Security or tanks or wasting money on a Truman Scholarship program. I was just in a different hearing—what a waste of money. But already 14% is interest. Could you guys, could you guys, any one of you, jump forward and tell me? Obviously, if you were an individual, you couldn't keep borrowing 26% of every dollar you spend. And obviously, if a seventh of what you're spending is already interest, you would just—they'd send you to debt counseling or something or other. How long can we go at this rate, and what's going to happen when we can't go this, go any longer?

Ms. Brittany MadniSPEAKER_00

We'll start entering a fiscal spiral in the 2030s if we continue down this path. You mentioned earlier appropriations and the fact that we're underway in that full-year discussion right now. One thing to keep in mind, of course, appropriations are only 27% of our federal budget, but even within that, the Senate's proposed appropriations bills right now, the remainder of them that were not already enacted, are $50 billion or more, because we haven't seen the full text of all of them, than what the House appropriations bills propose. So that alone is something that you could do to deal with immediately the trajectory that we're on. Obviously, $50 billion is not going to resolve our trillions of dollars that we're currently in the hole for just this year, $38.4 trillion overall. But it is important to start building that muscle memory amongst your colleagues.

Mr. Kurt CouchmanSPEAKER_14

And to build on that, the point of budgeting is to look at everything and see how we can do better. But that's not what Congress does. Congress does appropriations. It's important, but it's 26% of spending. We need to be looking at all spending, all revenue, including tax expenditures, getting all the committees involved, like Wisconsin does.

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI)SPEAKER_02

Just so you know, Mr. Couchman, I believe irresponsible people around here like to rattle on about all the mandatory spending, and they're right, except for the reason they rattle on about it is because they specifically don't want to do what they should do on discretionary spending.

Mr. Kurt CouchmanSPEAKER_14

Look at everything.

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI)SPEAKER_02

Yep, exactly. Um, I'm trying to think. Uh,

Mr. David M. WalkerSPEAKER_10

Congressman, can I provide something that would be helpful? What I've found that resonates with the public is if you take the financial statements for the U.S. government as of September 30, 2024, if Uncle Sam was a person, you drop eight zeros, here's what you get: $50,000 in revenue, $74,000 in expenses, $24,000 in a deficit, $1,240,000 in total liabilities and unfunded promises, $57,000 in assets, underwater $1,183,000. Would you lend money to that person? By the way, the crisis is coming way earlier than the 2030s, based on prominent economists on both sides of the aisle.

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI)SPEAKER_02

I was standing on the floor a couple weeks ago, and one of my colleagues, who is a conservative by any standard I had thought, still think he is, thought a VAT was inevitable. Eventually the US is just going to throw up their hands. Can we get out of this, do you believe, given the people that are in Congress, a pretty motley crew?

Mr. Kurt CouchmanSPEAKER_14

I think there are an extraordinary number of talented people on both sides that are being held back by a broken process. And if we fix the process, then we'll get much more from Congress. Article I—I mean, Congress should be the strongest branch. It is not. It's not co-equal branches. This is supposed to be the dominant branch, and it's been curious to hear so many members of Congress talking about the presidents. Why not talk about this institution and fixing this institution?

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI)SPEAKER_02

This institution is horrible.

Mr. Kurt CouchmanSPEAKER_14

But

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI)SPEAKER_02

let's fix it. Horrible.

Mr. Kurt CouchmanSPEAKER_14

Let's make it better.

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI)SPEAKER_02

And it's not the process, it's the people, I believe.

Rep. Becca Balint (D-VT)SPEAKER_13

You are part of it.

Mr. David M. WalkerSPEAKER_10

Not without a constitutional amendment. You won't solve this problem without a constitutional amendment.

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI)SPEAKER_02

Okay. Thank you for giving me an extra 50 seconds.

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, and I believe the gentlelady from Vermont has some consent requests.

Rep. Becca Balint (D-VT)SPEAKER_13

I do. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record three tweets: the first from Mr. Kurt Couchman, The claim that Trump's tariffs didn't cause inflation makes no sense; also from Kurt Couchman, President Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs are terrible for the metal-using industry jobs in my rural Pennsylvania hometown; and a retweet, It'd be great if the Supreme Court saves Trump and the GOP from themselves and kills the president's ability to drive up costs on consumers by ending his unconstitutional tariffs. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent to enter them into the record.

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

Well, that objection has been entered in the record, and I'll now recognize the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, the ranking member, Ms. Scanlon.

Ranking Member Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA)SPEAKER_01

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So clearly, we have structural issues here with our debt, with our budgets. I wanted to focus on the revenue side because that's a side that doesn't seem to get enough attention. And I would start with something that you talked about, Mr. Duke. In this big bill that passed last summer, our colleagues across the aisle have justified it as being necessary to avoid a tax cut on the American people when we know that most of it was going to wealthier folks. You mentioned that if there'd been a cap on who got those, or a floor on who got those tax cuts, it could have had a very different impact. Can you talk about that?

Mr. Brendan DukeSPEAKER_16

Absolutely. So, the full cost of the tax cuts that passed were about $4.5 trillion, but extending the expiring tax cuts was $4 trillion. So that's the pie we're working with here. The cost of extending them for households making under $400,000, on the other hand, was less than half that amount, according to analysis by the Treasury Department, right? And look, offsetting $4 trillion of cost would be really, really hard to do. $1.9 trillion, there's ways you can do that on the revenue side too. So I think that makes the job a lot easier, is just making sure that the 2% of households making over $400,000 don't get a tax cut would have made the job a whole heck of a lot easier.

Ranking Member Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA)SPEAKER_01

Certainly not chump change. Another thing that we've seen under this administration, and it was mentioned by one of our colleagues, is the purported savings by DOGE. But one of those big DOGE-isms has been to radically cut the IRS, the IRS, which has a return on investment of $5 to $12, I think, for every dollar spent there, and the laying off of people who were supposed to go after the big-dollar tax cheats. Can you talk about how that would have an impact on our revenue?

Mr. Brendan DukeSPEAKER_16

Yeah, I think you spelled it out right that we could have the perfect tax system that basically took care of our fiscal trajectory in the Internal Revenue Code, but if there aren't the people to enforce it, it doesn't matter because nobody's going to pay their taxes, right? So the key thing is having the IRS, and that was a key investment made under the Biden administration to increase IRS staffing, especially with a focus on households making over $400,000 and large corporations. But they've been systematically laying off those units that go after those groups. And so that just obviously mechanically will make it easier for those groups to just not pay the taxes they owe. That increases the deficit.

Ranking Member Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA)SPEAKER_01

Shockingly, they canceled the folks who were going to go after the big spenders. Programs like Social Security and Medicare are part of America's contract with our citizens and part of a long-held promise we've made to our country's seniors that people will contribute their wages over an— over a lifetime for an earned benefit that will be available when they become older or if they're disabled. Can you talk about how the balanced budget amendment that is being proposed— amendments that are being proposed might threaten those Social Security benefits?

Mr. Brendan DukeSPEAKER_16

Right. So, Social Security and Medicare outlays are part of the government, right? It's just part of it. And so, balanced budget amendments would basically treat those payments as part of the federal budget as a whole, and so would be limited. Now, we actually don't know a lot of the enforcement mechanisms behind a lot of these amendments, so it's hard to say exactly what would happen. But the key thing is, is those trust those programs are drawing down their trust funds they accumulated when the baby boom was working. And unless we are running a large enough surplus in the rest of the government, they would not be able to tap those reserves to pay out the benefits owed to people, right? So, I mean, I guess you could just do massive cuts to other parts of the government to keep those parts flowing. I think that's very unlikely. And so, they would be just as much at risk as the rest of the government.

Ranking Member Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA)SPEAKER_01

And of course, the fact that the tax cuts we've seen over the last couple decades have radically increased income inequality, that also has undermined our Social Security system because there are caps on who has to contribute. So once again, folks on the lower end of the economic scale are paying proportionally more than folks on the upper end. I did want to request unanimous consent to enter into the record an article entitled "How DOGE's Cuts to the IRS Threaten to Cost More than DOGE Will Ever Save."

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

Without objection.

Ranking Member Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA)SPEAKER_01

Okay, thank you. And I would yield back.

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

I thank the ranking member. I will now recognize the gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes.

Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX)SPEAKER_17

Thank you, Chairman Roy. Thanks for holding this hearing and especially for your fights over the past several years to promote fiscal prudence in Washington and very boldly standing up for the American taxpayers. We really appreciate that. It's not surprising to me that our colleagues across the aisle are not in favor of a balanced budget amendment. It would obviously stop them from spending money on their top priorities, which we've learned this year: things like transgender surgeries for foreigners, DEI scholarships in foreign countries, left-wing media outlets like NPR and PBS; would stop them from funding the NGO-industrial complex that's facilitated mass migration into our country, and all of the various other wasteful government programs that we've been fighting to slash over the past year since I've been in Congress, at least. Those are precisely the types of programs that I would like to see cut and why, amongst other reasons, I think that a balanced budget would in fact be prudent. Every dollar that we spend right now above what we take in in revenue is money that our children and grandchildren are going to have to pay back. And I, for one, don't want to, and I don't think that it is in any way moral to saddle my children, my son or my daughter, with debt to finance ridiculous programs as we have been. With that said, I want to thank the witnesses for being here. Really appreciate y'all's time. Ms. Madni, I agree that with you that achieving a balanced budget requires a significant decrease in spending. Do you know what the deficit was in 2019?

Ms. Brittany MadniSPEAKER_00

I'm sure that you have it in front of you, sir, so I'm gonna—

Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX)SPEAKER_17

$984 billion. Do you know what the deficit is now?

Ms. Brittany MadniSPEAKER_00

It's not good.

Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX)SPEAKER_17

Not good. A lot, a lot more than that, isn't it?

Ms. Brittany MadniSPEAKER_00

Yes, absolutely, sir.

Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX)SPEAKER_17

How much— do you know how much it is?

Ms. Brittany MadniSPEAKER_00

Uh, yes, we are estimated to be $1.8 trillion.

Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX)SPEAKER_17

There we go, $1.8 trillion.

Ms. Brittany MadniSPEAKER_00

I think it's actually $1.9 now.

Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX)SPEAKER_17

Got it. Um, and during that time, we've also seen, uh, we've seen spending balloon and revenue not be able to keep up. Of course, that's resulted in nearly a doubling of the deficit in 6 years. Um, one of the things that, that we worked on as part of the tax package that we passed earlier this year was reducing wasteful spending. We cut spending by $1.5 trillion, the biggest mandatory spending reduction in our country's history. Would love to hear your thoughts on the work that we did as, as part of that spending reduction. What portions of that do you think were, uh, the most, uh, most beneficial?

Ms. Brittany MadniSPEAKER_00

It's a little difficult for me to choose just one piece of it that was the most beneficial, but I do think that there were some significant wins. As we mentioned, we prevented a tax hike on the American people, and specifically working families, so I would be remiss not to mention that. But in terms of your your question on cuts, we eliminated $1.5 trillion in federal spending. That's going to reduce inflation significantly. One of the pieces of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that I am most in favor of is that we really started refocusing Medicaid on the vulnerable populations, and that included reforms that reduced the ability of Medicaid dollars, federal dollars from taxpayers—of course, it's the taxpayers' money, not the government's—from going toward illegal immigrants. We also ensured that those who can work must work in order to access Medicaid dollars. That's really important, not just in terms of our fiscal health as a nation, but because these programs were designed as safety net programs for the most vulnerable. And this this helps refocus them.

Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX)SPEAKER_17

Yep. And there's, there's been some talk and we've discussed possibly doing a second reconciliation bill. What are a few policy ideas that you think we should particularly focus on if we do go in that direction?

Ms. Brittany MadniSPEAKER_00

I'll stick with the Medicaid theme for a little while, sir. One thing that we could do is lower or eliminate the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage floor. Right now there's a statutory floor of 50%. We could reduce that so that states who under the formula would receive less from the federal government could—that could save us $400 billion. We could also repeal the Medicaid FMAP increase to the states that initially declined expansion. That would save us over $13 billion. Another option would be reducing the enhanced FMAP match for expansion populations that was from the Affordable Care Act. This, of course, is what gives the able-bodied working-age adults $9 for every $1 for the traditional population. If we did that, it would save $700 billion.

Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX)SPEAKER_17

Thank you, Miss Madni.

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I'll now recognize the gentlelady from Wyoming for 5 minutes.

Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_03

Well, thank you. And first of all, I would like to correct one of the statements made by our colleague on the other side about who actually pays the income taxes in this country. The top 10% of earners bore responsibility for 76% of all income taxes paid, and the top 25% paid 89% of all income taxes. Altogether, the top 50% of filers earned 90% of all income and were responsible for 98% of all income taxes paid in 2021. It's very clear that the people who earn the majority of the money are also the ones that are responsible for paying the income taxes in this country. The fiscal year 2025 national debt currently stands at around $28.78 trillion. That's what I was looking at just this morning, and the national debt is at $38 trillion and counting. In 2010, when I first started, uh, really kind of ringing the bell about the, the debt and deficit, the debt was, uh, $10 trillion. So we've added another, uh, $28, almost $30 trillion just in the last 15 years. The u.S. now spends 13% of its budget on interest on the national debt and more than current annual spending on Medicare or the national defense. Mr. Walker, understanding that the successful adoption of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution would inevitably help rein in future annual spending, factoring in our is- existing deficit and debt, I believe merits some additional attention. With our deficit just shy of the $2 trillion, how would the implementation of a balanced budget amendment need to approach this growing figure? What would we do with that growing figure with the deficit?

Mr. David M. WalkerSPEAKER_10

Well, first, I believe that the debt to GDP is too high right now in order to promote future economic growth, individual opportunity, etc. And so I think you need to do 2 things. One, you need, you need to limit how much debt as a percentage of the economy the country can take on, absent limited and extraordinary circumstances, a credit card limit. All right. And then secondly, let's set a target for a lower debt-to-GDP that we want to get to in 10 to 15 years and have mechanisms that can get us there, if you will. The American people know that we have a problem here. They support that approach that I just articulated. Uh, and in addition to that, they recognize the problem is both spending and revenue. And when you look at it, you have to look at it as a percentage of GDP. What percentage of spending to GDP? What percentage of revenue? And the American people support a 3-to-1 ratio. 3 parts projected spending reduction to 1 part revenue increase. But they believe that both are necessary.

Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_03

Okay. Well, should the enactment of a balanced budget amendment then provide for a transition period period to achieve a balanced budget over time, or could this be done immediately?

Mr. David M. WalkerSPEAKER_10

No, it needs to have a transition. There's no question.

Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_03

Do you know how long that transition should be?

Mr. David M. WalkerSPEAKER_10

I would say 10 years as a general guideline. I think Kurt Couchman has said the same.

Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_03

So you also talked about exceptions. The COVID-19 so-called public health emergency was initiated by HHS in January 2020. It was renewed 12 times, and it finally expired in May of 2023. The COVID-19 national emergency was initiated in March 2020 and terminated in April 2023, following finally the passage of a joint resolution of Congress. And according to the Treasury Department, from fiscal year 2019 to 2021, federal spending increased by about 50% in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. I believe that the Democrats spent over $5 trillion while Joe Biden was in the White House addressing some of this. According to usaspending.gov, approximately $4.7 trillion in total budgetary resources was spent in response to COVID-19. Another point of contention for a balanced budget amendment is obviously the concept of exceptions, such as spending for in times of war, national security, natural disasters, and other emergencies. Mr. Couchman, one of my concerns is how those exceptions will be defined and implemented. Do you see that there could be potential abuses both by Congress as well as the White House by declaring national emergencies to circumvent any kind of budget constraints that we may adopt with a balanced budget amendment?

Mr. Kurt CouchmanSPEAKER_14

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. And so Congress can't be content to simply pass a BBA and assume that it will fix all the problems. I once believed that. I was naive and young, and I now believe there has to be a robust suite of statutory mechanisms to help Congress exercise its legislative powers in order to check and balance itself, but also the White House, and in some cases, perhaps the judiciary. One other quick note about balanced budget amendment design. It is critical to avoid annual balance, because tying your revenue and spending together so closely when revenue is so volatile will create all kinds of problems. In fact, the way that Mr. Duke described—but there are other BBAs that don't have that problem and also don't rely on defining spending as outlays, which is when money leaves the federal government. If you define it in a general term, you can, through implementing legislation, avoid all the problems that Mr. Duke talked about with respect to business cycles and automatic stabilizers.

Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_03

And have you identified those and written them down?

Mr. Kurt CouchmanSPEAKER_14

Yes, ma'am. A big piece of that has been introduced as legislation by Representative Tom Emmer and then-Senator Mike Braun.

Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_03

Thank you. I yield back.

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

Thank the gentlelady from Wyoming. I will now recognize the gentlelady from California for 5 minutes.

Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA)SPEAKER_04

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And before I begin, I want to make sure that the American people understand what we're talking about, that the deficit is simply the gap between what the government spends and what it brings in each year. And when that gap grows, we add to the national debt. So balancing the budget would mean closing the gap so we stop adding more debt. And Republicans call themselves fiscal hawks, but the numbers tell a different story. Under President Trump's first term, the deficit jumped from $665 billion to $3 trillion, from a B to a T. And he's already added another $2 trillion this term. Republicans added $155 billion to the national debt in a single week. The national debt is now $38.336 trillion, driven by GOP tax cuts that will cost $3.4 trillion through 2034 and nearly $5 trillion if extended. And now we spend more than $1 trillion a year just on interest. So that is the real fiscal landscape that we are dealing with. And anyone who's managing their house budget would fall over backwards, would fall over backwards if somebody was like, Well, this is what you can't do, you have to cut, but this is what we are continuing to do—spend like it's water out of a tap. So, Mr. Duke, nonpartisan analysis shows that the Bush and Trump tax cuts are the primary drivers of long-term debt. They will cost $3.4 trillion through 2034 and nearly $5 trillion if extended. So how central are these tax cuts to the debt trajectory we are on right now?

Mr. Brendan DukeSPEAKER_16

Right. So basically, the debt would not be growing anymore if we had not—if we reversed those tax cuts or if they hadn't happened. So one analysis by a former colleague of mine calculated that of the increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio since in the 21st century, over half is attributable to the Bush and Trump tax cuts. Over half. The rest is emergency spending like COVID and things like that, but over half is attributable to those two policy choices.

Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA)SPEAKER_04

Okay. So, Mr. Duke, while Republicans demand cuts to food assistance and health care and child care and housing support, President Trump and his officials have spent $300 million on a White House ballroom, more than $220 million on golf travel, up to $45 million on a birthday military parade, $473 million on National Guard deployments. Trump officials have also misused taxpayer resources, including a $60 million FBI jet that Kash Patel used for personal travel, such as date nights and luxury hunting trips and a golf vacation in Scotland, and the Coast Guard purchasing up to $200 million in Gulfstream G700 private jets for Secretary Kristi Noem. These folks are not using their mileage points, for sure. Given these expenditures, Mr. Duke, how would you characterize the fiscal priorities reflected in these decisions, and at the very least, are they putting American taxpayers first?

Mr. Brendan DukeSPEAKER_16

Yeah, I think the way I would think about it is that we have done—put into law enormous cuts to SNAP and Medicaid that help working families afford groceries and healthcare, right? And I think the way it's framed is there was no other choice. But I think just these tax cuts, the bill they just did shows that there was a choice and they decided to opt for that. Budgets are about priorities, and we can choose those priorities. And essentially, we've chosen tax cuts for the largest estates worth over $30 million per couple over families trying to buy food and groceries.

Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA)SPEAKER_04

Yeah. And, Mr. Duke, Republicans also approved a $40 billion bailout for Argentina, including a $20 billion US currency swap, even though Argentina has defaulted nine times, like a huge, bigly credit risk. So what financial risk does that create for American taxpayers?

Mr. Brendan DukeSPEAKER_16

I don't think it takes a financial wizard to know that investing in Argentina is not your best bet.

Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA)SPEAKER_04

A losing proposition. Absolutely. And thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

Thank the gentlelady from California. I will now recognize myself for up to 5 minutes. I first just want to appreciate the witnesses. We've had a lengthy hearing with most of the members of the committee showing up, so I appreciate your time and your willingness to be here and for focusing on this issue. Now, I will note this has regrettably mostly turned into a Budget Committee hearing. Now, recognizing it is a balanced budget amendment question, so it necessarily raises those issues, the question really before us is whether or not we should amend the Constitution of the United States to have some sort of structural changes to force Congress to be fiscally responsible, recognizing that both sides, as you just saw, in its normal, relatively petty way, pointed at each other for being the cause of our deficit woes. And the fact of the matter is both sides—my Democratic colleagues and my Republican colleagues, past, present, and future—are responsible for this. I think some reporting was done that when Mr. Musk came to visit the Republican delegation in December, a year ago, almost to the date, probably this week, I'm guessing, if somebody Googles it, that Mr. Musk was talking about DOGE and talking about the savings, and many Republican colleagues went to the microphone and lauded the prospects of cuts and spending restraint. And I stood up, and I said, Mr. Musk, you're going to have no problem identifying things to cut. You're going to produce a great list, and we should do most of it, but your problem is going to be everyone standing right next to me here, meaning all of my colleagues. Now, I would have said that—it happened to be a Republican meeting. I would have said that about my Democratic colleagues as well because, as my friend from Kentucky said, we are constitutionally as members of Congress hardwired, unfortunately, to want to effectively buy people's votes with a never-ending array of spending programs, whether they are meritorious or not. I often have people who come into my office who ask for cancer subsidies. As a cancer survivor, I am sympathetic. I often and almost always tell them no, unless they come in with a payment and tell me how they are going to pay for it. What else are they going to cut? Same thing with my farmers. Farmers come in and they are looking for something for extensions in the farm bill and so forth, and I say, Well, are you going to do anything about the 80% of the farm bill that is SNAP and the extent to which it is consuming the budget? Well, no, we can't. Well, then I'm not going to support it. Members of Congress have got to actually, to the gentleman from Kentucky's point, do their job. The only thing I want to clarify here for the record, because we are here trying to talk about whether we should amend the Constitution, is I just want to go down the witnesses and say, and I think I know the answer, but just yes or no, do you believe that the Constitution of the United States can and should be amended to provide a mechanism to ensure that we are not spending more than is coming in as a general matter? Mr. Walker, do you believe it can and should be?

Mr. David M. WalkerSPEAKER_10

Yes, but I believe it ought to be debt to GDP.

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

Mr. Couchman?

Mr. Kurt CouchmanSPEAKER_14

Yes, as nearly every advanced country has already done.

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

Ms. Madni?

Ms. Brittany MadniSPEAKER_00

Yes, absolutely.

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

Mr. Duke?

Mr. Kurt CouchmanSPEAKER_14

Should not.

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

Okay. Mr. Duke, you would you would maintain that position even if it were only tax increases that were suggested as the mechanism for ensuring that there was fiscal responsibility and that inflows and outflows were equitable?

Mr. Brendan DukeSPEAKER_16

I think that's the job of Congress to do. I'm a 49ers fan. I wouldn't approve of a law that said 49ers win the Super Bowl each year.

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

So, so. I mean, I at least appreciate the consistency that you're saying that it shouldn't be put in place even for tax increases as opposed to spending restraint. But what I would question then is, is— and I don't, I don't even debate the merits of whether or not Congress is shirking its responsibility on an annual basis. I would only point out that it has done so for effectively eternity. And so the question here is, on behalf of the American people, what do we do about it? Because as Mr. Massie said, well, elect better people. Well, we never have. We elect 435 people, members of Congress, who do the same thing every Congress, which is spend more money than we take in in revenues. So I think my question is is, again, do you not believe that there should be some mechanism, something in place? Perhaps, for example, a if you can't amend the Constitution, we don't think we should do that, then should we have statutory restraints that say that members of Congress should not get paid, or members of Congress shouldn't be able to hold chairmanships if they vote for budgets that are out of balance, or that members of Congress in the NRCC or the DCCC can't raise money with all of their special perks and benefits to raise money for incumbent members of Congress who are crapping all over the American people by mortgaging their children's future? Is there anything that we can or should do as Congress to restrain Congress from racking up deficits?

Mr. Brendan DukeSPEAKER_16

I think Congress has to want it. I think your colleague, Mr. Massie, laid it out that it's on the members of Congress to do it. For example, I think of statutory PAYGO, right, where we have a law that says if you increase the deficit, automatic across-the-board spending, it always gets waived.

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

I get it. But we do this all the time. And I'm not going to go too far over my time. I'm trying to be indulgent to some of my colleagues. I'll give myself a few more seconds. But we've done that over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. I know. But that's why we're here. And I could sit here and I could ask these guys questions. I know what their answer is going to be. I know what your answer is going to be. The point here is we didn't have an actual debate about amending the Constitution to try to achieve something, or in the absence of amending the Constitution, is there something this body, the United States Congress, can do to stop doing what we're doing, which is killing our country with interest piling up around the ears of our children? And if the answer is only that we've got to look in the mirror and be better, I agree, but we never do. We don't. And those of us that are dying on the hill trying to fight on the spending restraint, it's literally like pulling teeth to get discretionary spending held flat while we try to grow the economy out of it and deal with the fact that mandatory spending has gone from what, 4% in 1962 to what, 24% now of the overall GDP? And discretionary has gone from about 12% to 6% over that time. Mandatory spending is consuming it. Now, I've gone a minute over. I would just say, look, I appreciate the witnesses coming in. I appreciate their expertise. I appreciate my colleagues. I would suggest that we have got to do something to stop mortgaging our children's future, and we've got to stop pointing across at each other and saying, Well, you did it, and you did it. It's just simply not true. My Democratic colleagues give Clinton credit for the '90s, but want to ignore welfare reform and ignore Republican Congress that came in in '94, '95. So with that, I've used up my time. Does anybody have any consent requests? Gentlelady from California.

Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA)SPEAKER_04

Well, I don't have a consent request.

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

Well, then.

Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA)SPEAKER_04

But I just want to say something to you. Okay Okay. Okay, yeah. So, A, I just want to commend you on your comments and rules on the SCORE Act, okay? And then second, I do want to say that I do think some districts try to elect better people, and I do I do think that. But really, I want to commend you. You mentioned petty in your comments, and I was thinking, I want to commend you, Mr. Chair, for discouraging any petty, caustic, childish outbursts in this hearing. I just want to thank

Chairman Chip Roy (R-TX)SPEAKER_05

you. I think, I think the gentlelady— I do think we owe it to the future generations to actually solve this problem, and we're not. And so if we want to amend the Constitution, let's have that debate. If we don't, let's come up with another solution. With that, I will do whatever I'm supposed to do to conclude the hearing. This concludes today's hearing. We thank the witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee. Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record. Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.