WASHINGTON — Rejecting the idea Congress can’t control its spending impulses, the House turned back a Republican proposal Friday to amend the Constitution to dam the rising flood of federal red ink.
The House voted 261-165 in favor of the measure to require annual balanced budgets, but that was 23 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to advance a constitutional amendment.
Colorado’s delegation voted along party lines — a disappointment for Republican Rep. Mike Coffman of Aurora, who chairs the House caucus and was unable to persuade a single Colorado Democrat to vote with him.
Democrats overwhelmingly opposed the proposal, arguing that such a requirement would force Congress to make devastating cuts to social programs.
Rep. Ed Perlmutter, a Democrat from Jefferson County who had been undecided Thursday but leaning no, said he was concerned about locking something into the Constitution without “the ability to invest in long-term projects and assets,” he said.
“Those are two important pieces . . . of government responsibility,” he said.
Denver Democrat Rep. Diana DeGette said she believes in Congress balancing its books every year because “every American family must balance their own household budget.”
“However, while the notion of a balanced-budget amendment sounds like a good idea, it leaves our nation unequipped to deal with the inevitable crises we must confront — like war and severe economic downturns,” she said.
After the failed vote on the House floor, some Democrats erupted in cheers.
Coffman called the day disappointing and sad.
“We had an opportunity to . . . put the fiscal discipline in place to ensure we do not go down the path of Greece, but unfortunately, the House squandered that opportunity today,” he said. “Hardworking American families make tough choices every day to balance their budgets and pay their bills.”
The House passed a similar measure in 1995, with the help of 72 Democrats. That year, the measure fell one vote short of passing the Senate.
The measure on the floor Friday, sponsored by Rep. Robert Goodlatte, R-Va., mirrored the 1995 resolution in stating that federal spending could not exceed revenues in any one year. It would have required a three-fifths majority to raise the debt ceiling or waive the balanced-budget requirement in any year. But Congress would be able to let the budget go into deficit with a simple majority if there was a serious military conflict.
Boulder Democrat Rep. Jared Polis, along with Perlmutter, supported another version of the amendment that would have protected infrastructure and Social Security spending.
“Just as Colorado has a balanced budget requirement, so should the United States,” Polis said in a statement. “The version House Republicans brought to the floor today is a sham as it fails to include capital budgets, as Colorado’s balanced budget law does.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Allison Sherry: 202-662-8904 or asherry@denverpost.com
