Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this is no time for this body to be playing dangerous games with the American economy and with American jobs, and yet that's exactly what's going on on the floor of this House today. Our Republican colleagues are taking the position that unless and until we accept their radical budget plan, they will prevent the United States from paying its bills.

And what does their budget plan do? Yes, it is the same old plan to end the Medicare guarantee, to slash Medicaid, to cut education while protecting special interest tax breaks, like subsidies for Big Oil companies.

And here's what they're saying: Unless we do that, unless we take that, they're going to prevent the United States from paying its bills.

Remember, these are bills that are coming due on actions that this Congress has already taken. These are the bills to pay for two wars. These are bills to pay for the prescription drug plan that was never paid for. And one of the primary reasons we don't have enough revenue coming in to pay those bills is because of the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that disproportionately benefited the very wealthy.

It's interesting to hear some of our Republican colleagues who have been here for that entire period of time and voted on all those things saying that it's a sacrifice for them to accept responsibility and pay the bills for the things they voted for. Imagine if the American people took that position.

And what are the consequences of the United States failing to pay its bills? The same thing that would happen to an American family that decided not to pay its bills, whether it's its mortgage, its car payment, whatever it might be. It would undermine the creditworthiness of that American family.

And taking that action will undermine the creditworthiness of the United States. That will lead to a rise in interest rates and a sinking economy. It would hurt every American family. And it would increase-- not decrease--the deficit of the United States. That is the result our Republican colleagues are threatening in this bill if their demands are not met.

So let's dig a little deeper into those demands. As I say, what they want to do is impose the same budget plan that they voted on earlier in this House and we debated. It does end the Medicare guarantee, it does slash Medicaid and education, and it does protect corporate tax loopholes. Only this time it's worse, because they want to take that budget plan and implant it in the Constitution of the United States.

Now, nobody in this body should be fooled for one moment. This is not an ordinary balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. We can have that debate, and there are legitimate arguments. This does something very different and very sinister. It manipulates the Constitution of the United States in a way to graft the Republican budget plan into the Constitution. How does it do it? There are two devices, and the gentleman knows them well.

The first is, it says you can cut Medicare, you can cut Social Security, you can cut education, with a majority vote. But if you want to cut a subsidy for a Big Oil company for the purposes of reducing the deficit, if you want to

cut corporate jet loopholes for the purpose of reducing the deficit, that's not a majority vote. That's a supermajority, two-thirds vote. So it biases the Constitution itself in a manner that prefers cuts to Medicare beneficiaries who have a median income of under $22,000 before asking the very wealthiest in our country to return to the same tax rates that were in place during the Clinton administration.

Secondly, it says, we have to pass a constitutional amendment in the next 2 days that also includes an overall cap on spending. And if you look at the bill that came out of the Judiciary Committee, what that would impose is an 18 percent cap. Maybe 18 percent, maybe 19 percent in the end, we don't know, but you have to have a cap. And the one that's come out so far has an 18 percent cap.

Now, let's put that number into context. Not since 1966, just after we enacted Medicare to protect our senior citizens from health crisis, not since that time has the United States met that level of expenditures. We've been over that level of expenditures. So by putting that cap on, combined with the provision to make it easier to cut Medicare than it is to cut corporate tax subsidies, they are writing into the Constitution itself this bias. They're stacking the constitutional deck in favor of engrafting their budget plan into our founding document.

Now, I heard the gentleman say, and we hear it many times, and I hope we won't hear it again on this floor today, 49 of the 50 States have balanced budget amendments. That's true. But they don't have this kind of balanced budget amendment. They don't have balanced budget amendments with these pernicious features, with some exceptions.

Fourteen States have a supermajority requirement written into their constitution. For a good number of those, it's less than two-thirds, which is what this would require. Sixteen States write into their Constitution spending caps, and only seven States in the country combine the two.

So let's not talk about how every State can balance the budget, an argument which also ignores the reality that the Federal Government is not just any old State. It is the Federal Government of the United States of America. It needs to be able to respond to emergencies and wars and the like.

So let me close with this, Madam Speaker. We do need to, number one, make sure we pay our bills; and, number two, we need to get our deficits under control in a way that helps our economy, not hurts it. And that's why the President of the United States put forward a proposal that is modeled on the framework that was put forward by the Simpson-Bowles commission. It doesn't have every detail in it, but it adopts that framework that says let's cut the deficit by approximately $4 trillion over the next 10 years. Let's do it in a balanced way. In fact, it's tilted toward spending cuts--$3 of spending cuts for every dollar in revenue. He makes it very clear he wants to get the revenue, closing some of these corporate tax loopholes, asking the top 2 percent of income earners in the United States to just go back to the rates they were paying during the Clinton administration, a time we all remember when the economy was booming and we created 20 million jobs.

So let's take a balanced approach to this. Let's not take the position that if our demands are not met, if we can not manipulate the Constitution of the United States to engraft our budget plan into that founding document, then we're going to let the United States fail to pay its bills and suffer the terrible economic consequences. It's not so much Members in this body that will be suffering those; its the American people. Let's not do that to the American people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I wish the gentleman had yielded because I think it would have become very clear that the Republican position is they won't close a tax loophole that generates one penny for deficit reduction, not one penny.

So you can't close a corporate jet loophole if it's going to deficit reduction. You can't say to the oil and gas companies we're going to end your subsidy if it's going to go for deficit reduction. We all know there are a lot of

Washington lobbyists that manipulate the Tax Code around here. Getting a tax break, a taxpayer giveaway to the Tax Code, is just like getting something through spending, and yet our Republican colleagues refuse to allow any cut in a loophole to go to deficit reduction, not one penny.

Again, we heard it from the majority leader, we're going to hear it I guess all day, 49 out of 50 States have balanced budget amendments. This is not the kind of balanced budget amendment States have. This writes into the Constitution of the United States again a preference for cutting Medicare and Social Security--that requires a majority vote--but in order to close one of those corporate tax loopholes for the purpose of reducing the deficit you need a two-thirds vote. You're going to imbed into the Constitution of the United States those policy preferences. That is exactly what this does.

So let's not hear about the 49 States. They don't all have these spending caps, and they don't all have that preference protecting special interest tax breaks from use for deficit reduction.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished leader of the Democratic Caucus, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just want to make a couple of points in response to statements that have been raised.

Not only would this write in the Constitution a two-thirds requirement for getting rid of special interest tax breaks for the purposes of deficit reduction, it would make it easier to create new special interest tax loopholes than to eliminate them. If a Washington lobbyist is pushing for a big special break, you can do that with a majority vote under this constitutional amendment. But if you want to eliminate one of those special interest tax loopholes, whoops, you need a two-thirds vote.

Now let's be very clear on what the President has said. Yes, we want to close those corporate loopholes. He has also been very clear that beginning in 2013 we should go back to asking the very top income earners to pay the same rates they were paying during the Clinton administration, which, as I said, was a time when the economy was booming. Now every time we mention that fact we hear our Republican colleagues talk about small business and how they're going to protect small business. When you hear that language, you really know that they're using that as cover to protect some of these big special interests.

Why do I say that? We agree that small businesses are the engine of this economy; but if you look at the Joint Tax Committee report, July 12, nonpartisan, they say that 3 percent of all businesses would even be impacted--

only 3 percent. Less than 3 percent of all businesses would be impacted by the President's proposal, those that file as S corporations. And then it goes on to provide a warning here, specifically saying beware because these entities might not be ``small,'' in quotes.

In fact, they say in 2005, over 12,000 S corporations and 6,000 partnerships had receipts of more than $50 million. Among those are KKR and Pricewaterhouse. Now these are all good businesses, but I would ask my colleagues whether they are small businesses. And let's not use the rhetoric of small businesses to protect preferences for the big guys.

We all need to share responsibility for getting this deficit under control. We need a balanced approach to doing that.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), my colleague on the Budget Committee.

Madam Speaker, the sponsor of the bill mentioned some House rules. I think he is well aware that you can always waive House rules by majority vote. Thank goodness you cannot just waive the Constitution of the United States. Our Founders made it difficult to get bad ideas into the Constitution. Again, I want to make it clear, this is not your garden-variety balanced budget amendment. This is manipulating the Constitution of the United States itself in a way that makes it easier to cut Medicare, easier to cut Social Security, and easier to cut education than it is to cut corporate tax loopholes for the purpose of reducing the deficit.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), a member of the Budget Committee.

Madam Speaker, when we were all sworn in, we were also sworn to protect the Constitution of the United States, not manipulate the Constitution of the United States to protect special interest tax breaks for oil and gas companies or other special interests by implanting into that document a requirement that two- thirds of this body and the Senate have to vote to get rid of them for purposes of deficit reduction.

I also think that while we're all entitled to our own opinions, we're not entitled to our own facts. If you look at the Medicare trustees' report, it will indicate that the health care reform bill extended the life of the trust fund, and we also did it by getting rid of the overpayments to some of the Medicare Advantage plans that were being paid at 114 percent of what other plans were being paid for. Taxpayers were oversubsidizing those plans, as were Medicare recipients.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to a terrific member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, we have been making a point that this is not your garden variety constitutional amendment. This is--

I will yield on your time, Mr. Goodlatte, and I'm happy when you have some time to do that.

In fact, I think you're going to want an opportunity, because the gentleman from Virginia was asked at the hearing

on his proposal for a constitutional amendment, which was voted out of the committee, to identify one budget that would meet the requirements of their version, this version of the constitutional amendment, and it was pointed out that even the draconian--

I will not yield on my time.

The gentleman pointed out that not even the Republican budget that passed the House, that ends the Medicare guarantee and is draconian, not even that would meet those requirements, that the budget that would meet those requirements was that passed by the Republican Study Group, which is like the Republican plan on steroids. In fact, a lot of Members on the Republican side decided that was way overboard. That would require slashes in things like Medicare and Social Security even more than the Republican budget that passed the House.

So that is the one budget that was identified as meeting the requirements of that constitutional amendment. This is not a simple constitutional amendment. They know that that's a popular idea.

So they're dressing up their particular version of it in that language, talking about 49 out of 50 States have this. Again, two devices: One, supermajority; a two-thirds vote required to cut corporate tax loopholes when only a simple majority is required to cut Medicare and Social Security. We don't think things like that belong in the Constitution of the United States.

I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Budget Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass).

I would be happy to entertain a debate.

Here's the question----

Let me just say this. I would not want to prevent the United States from being able to respond in cases of war, in national emergency.

I'm happy to work with the gentleman on that enterprise, but that's very different than what you're talking about.

I would just remind my colleagues that the President has put on the table a balanced approach to reducing the deficit. It would cut about $4 trillion from the deficit over the next 10 to 12 years. It's a balanced approach, again, based on the overall framework of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission. It calls for $3 in spending cuts for $1 in revenue. It would be raised after 2013 by closing special interest tax loopholes and asking the folks at the very top to go back to the same rates that were in place during the Clinton administration. That's what the President said.

It's hard to have a conversation when the other party to the negotiations takes the position that they will not allow one cent from closing a corporate tax loophole to go for the purposes of deficit reduction. And now we see them trying to enshrine within the Constitution a limitation on our ability to get rid of those special interest tax loopholes. They would now require a two-thirds vote. That is a Washington lobbyist's dream in the Constitution.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Small Business Committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Madam Speaker, nobody is saying that we shouldn't balance our budget. We should balance our budget. In fact, the last time it was in balance was during the Clinton administration when they took a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, including having in place sufficient revenues from the folks at the very top to help cover our bills.

Then what happened in 2001-2003 is that we had back-to-back tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the very wealthy, which are a significant contributor to why there is now a mismatch between the bills we have to pay and the revenue coming in, which is why the President of the United States has said, Let's reduce the deficit. Let's do it in a balanced way. Let's do $3 in cuts to $1 in revenue.

I go back to the fact that the Republicans in the House want to insert in the Constitution of the United States a provision that would require a two-thirds vote to get rid of a special interest tax loophole for the purpose of deficit reduction. That kind of makes it difficult to have a balanced plan.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Madam Speaker, the one surefire way that we're going to send interest rates up in this country and add to the cost of living for every American is if the United States doesn't pay its bills--bills for obligations that we've already taken on, which is what this is about. Some people, again, think it's a sacrifice to pay bills for actions and decisions that they've already supported and voted for. I would also point out that the Republican budget that passed the House and that would be put into this bill would require us to raise the debt ceiling by $8 trillion between now and 2022. So let's not play this game with respect to paying our Nation's bills.

We have to do two things: We have to pay our Nation's bills--every family knows they have to pay their bills--and we have to come up with a deficit reduction plan.

The reality is the President has put a plan on the table. The reality is our Republican colleagues don't happen to like it because, as I said, for every $3 in spending cuts, it would ask us to have $1 in revenue from closing these special interest tax loopholes. Again, they want to manipulate the Constitution of the United States to protect those loopholes, to make it hard to get rid of them.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, as part of the plan the President has put on the table that would reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over about 10 to 12 years, he has about a trillion dollars in cuts in discretionary spending. He does ask the Pentagon, which is the one agency that has never passed a GAO audit, to help contribute toward resolving that deficit problem. And he also does it without making deep cuts in critical investments for our country like education, like investment in infrastructure.

We're going to see in a couple of weeks a bill that may come out of the Transportation Committee that dramatically slashes infrastructure investments at a time when we have 20 percent unemployment in the construction industry.

So, yes, we have to make these cuts. The President's plan makes the cuts. But let's not take a hatchet to education investments. Let's not take a hatchet to investing in critical infrastructure, and let's not enshrine in the Constitution of the United States a preference for cutting Medicare and Social Security over cutting special interest tax loopholes. That's what this provision will do.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. Speaker, I think the American families gathering around their tables do not have the option of not paying their bills on obligations they've already incurred. They can't say, Oh, it's okay to not pay my car payment, but I will pay my mortgage. They don't have that choice; and, frankly, the United States Government should not be saying that we're going to make those choices. We should be paying all our bills. And I would remind my colleagues that the reason we have to raise the debt ceiling is for obligations that have already been incurred, votes that have already been taken. For example, two wars, an unfunded prescription drug bill, and the reality of two tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the very wealthy.

Now, I would urge my colleagues to read the bill. The section the gentleman referred to dealt with the sequestration. There's nothing in the bill that says not to cut Medicare or Social Security as part of reaching those targets. In fact, they're going to implant in the Constitution of the United States a spending level that we have not achieved since just after we passed Medicare.

So what they would do through this is call for deep cuts in Medicare. The numbers in this particular statutory provision track the budget that the Republicans passed off this floor. The CBO analyzed that. It looked at the impact on Medicare beneficiaries, and it's in a letter dated April 5, 2011, to the chairman of the Budget Committee, pointing out that under the Republican budget plan, Medicare beneficiaries will end up paying about 60 percent of the costs compared to 25 to 30 percent under Medicare today.

It's interesting that Members of Congress have written into the statute provisions that say for Members of Congress, we will have about 72 to 75 percent of our premiums and costs covered when we're saying to seniors on Medicare, let's put in these spending caps that will require you to pay a whole lot more.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, again, the President has said two things: Number one, America pays its bills for the obligations that it's incurred. Number two, he put a plan on the table to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion; again, $3 in spending cuts for $1 of revenue.

I would point out to the gentleman, the President was very explicit. He said that the revenue component would begin in January of 2013; and in the meantime, he's actually proposed extending the payroll tax for another year during the year 2012 so that consumers would have more money to generate more demand in the economy, which is very fragile right now.

But make no mistake: Our long-term challenge is getting the economy going again and reducing our deficit, and the economy needs that to happen, and it should happen in a balanced way.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with much of what the gentleman said, especially that we need to take responsibility for our own actions. And that's why nobody should be taking the position that we won't pay the bills of the United States of America unless we get a plan that's 100 percent our way.

American families can't say to the mortgage company, you know what? I don't like the way you're handling this. I'm not going to pay you, or whatever. And so we need to take that same approach.

Decisions have been made in the past. We're obligated to pay the bill for those decisions. Let's not try and duck those responsibilities for our own actions.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I would again remind my colleagues that the last time we were running a budget surplus was during the years of the Clinton administration. During that period of time our spending was at a level that was higher than the limitation in here, and we were paying our obligations. What this would do would create an anti- majoritarian, anti-democratic provision in the Constitution that says you can't balance your budget at 19 percent of GDP, even if that's the will of the American people, even if it's how we did it back during the Clinton administration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the gentleman is new to the body, but there were lots of decisions made over the past years for which the bills are coming due now. For example, in 2005 when our Republican colleagues headed up the House, we passed a prescription drug add-on to Medicare which was not funded, not one penny. It was all put on the credit card. Two wars were put on the credit card; and again, tax cuts in 2001, 2003 that disproportionately benefited the very wealthy that created this gap.

So I agree with the gentleman. It is time, sir, to take responsibility for our actions. And it is interesting to hear some folks say that it is a sacrifice for us to have to pay bills for decisions that were made in the past.

Now, yes, we need to get the deficit under control. And again, the President of the United States has put on the table a balanced approach over 10 years, $3 of spending cuts to $1 of revenue. And again, our Republican colleagues have walked away from the table because they don't want to raise one penny of revenue from closing corporate tax loopholes.

Just to be clear, the President's plan would extend middle class tax cuts beyond 2013. The President's plan would say let's extend the payroll tax cut for 2012. But he says let's get serious about our deficit and let's do it in a balanced way with shared responsibility.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a member of the Ways and Means Committee who knows a lot about the importance of shared responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I would just ask my Republican colleagues to consider why they want to write a provision in the Constitution of the United States that would make it harder to shut down a special interest tax loophole for the purpose of reducing the deficit for our children and grandchildren.

I now yield 4 minutes to our very distinguished Democratic whip and my colleague from the State of Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 355 and ask for its immediate consideration.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the purpose of debate only, I would like to yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 355 provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011. The rule provides for 4 hours of general debate on the underlying bill and grants the minority party a motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, we are at a seminal moment in our Nation's history. When I turn on the television, when I read the newspapers, I get a lot of advice. Folks say act: act to raise the debt ceiling, act to cut spending, act to balance the budget.

Mr. Speaker, today we are here to do all of those things--cut, cap, balance, and with it increase the debt ceiling in order to allow this country to continue its good line of credit.

But, Mr. Speaker, that line of credit is not something we can take for granted. Too often, I hear folks come to the floor and say, Just raise the debt ceiling. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we've had that vote. We brought a clean debt limit vote to the floor. I would say for the sake of all the young people we're blessed to have here in the gallery with us today, Mr. Speaker, we voted ``no.'' We defeated that clean debt ceiling to say, no, we cannot simply extend America's line of credit. We must take action to bend that curve of debt. Now that was this House acting, Mr. Speaker.

Last week, America's credit rating agencies joined in that debate. I read to you from Moody's last week:

``While the debt ceiling has been raised numerous times in the past and the issue has sometimes been contentious, bond interest and principal payments have always been paid on time. If the debt limit is raised again and default is avoided, a AAA rating would likely be confirmed.''

That's what we hear all too often, Mr. Speaker. What we don't hear is this second sentence:

``However, the outlook assigned at that time would very likely be changed to negative unless a substantial and credible agreement is achieved on a budget that includes long-term deficit reduction. To retain a stable outlook, such an agreement should include a deficit trajectory that leads to stabilization and then decline in the ratio of the Federal Government debt to GDP.''

Mr. Speaker, that may be a lot of bond analyst speak, but what that means in simple terms is, if we do nothing as a Nation, our credit rating will be downgraded, and if we simply raise the debt limit and do nothing to get a handle on our debt, our credit rating will also be downgraded. That's Moody's, Mr. Speaker.

S&P writes the same thing last week:

``We view an inability to timely agree and credibly implement medium- term fiscal consolidation policy as inconsistent with a AAA solvent rating, given the expected government debt trajectory noted above.''

Mr. Speaker, that's what we're talking about today. Just cutting doesn't get it done. We've got some debt limit issues that we've got to deal with. Just capping doesn't get it done. We've still got some debt limit issues that we've got to deal with. Just balancing doesn't get it done. We've still got debt limit issues that we have to deal with. But, Mr. Speaker, just raising the debt limit doesn't get it done either.

It requires cutting, it requires capping, it requires balancing, and it requires raising the debt limit.

We have brought that resolution to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, while so many other folks in this town are content to talk, to pontificate, to share their wisdom with absolutely any television camera who will listen, this House moves forward legislation that describes line by line by line, in painful detail, what we will do to restore America's fiscal house.

I'm proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation. I'm proud to be a member of the Rules Committee that has reported this rule to the floor today. I rise in strong support of this rule, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm confused about whether time is running out or about whether we're moving too quickly here today, but to clarify that, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend from the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a gentleman who held a very persuasive Special Order on this topic last night, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to the gentlelady that there is only one bill in this Congress that abolishes every single corporate loophole in the entire United States Tax Code. That's H.R. 25, the Fair Tax. I would welcome the gentlelady on that bill because I too share a desire to see those loopholes eliminated.

I now yield 2 minutes to a cosponsor of the Fair Tax, the gentleman who has cosponsored bipartisan tort reform legislation here in the House, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

At this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to another cosponsor of the Fair Tax, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

(Mr. CULBERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it gives me great pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say that that competing vision of trillions more in stimulus and more in government jobs and more in government spending is one idea of how to revive this economy. It's just not one that I share.

I yield at this time 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks), who also I do not believe shares that opinion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a colleague who is a great leader on this issue, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a mentor of mine, the gentleman from the great State of Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The answer is there's absolutely nothing different from this amendment than any other amendment to the Constitution that relies on the judiciary to interpret it.

That is not correct. The responsibility lies here, as my colleague knows. But as is true with every word in the Constitution, it relies on the judiciary to interpret it.

I have the sponsor of the legislation right here to answer that very question.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I don't, though I do have the bill's sponsor here to answer any questions you all might have.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it was 224 years ago that the Constitutional Convention was wrapping up that summer in 1787. Ben Franklin walked out of the front door and a woman asked him, ``What did you create?'' And he famously responded, ``A republic, if you can keep it.'' That's what the debate is about here today, Mr. Speaker--our Republic, and can we keep it?

Mr. Speaker, the last time we debated a balanced budget amendment was back in 1995, 16 years ago. At that time, now-Minority Leader Steny Hoyer said this: ``This country confronts a critical threat caused by the continuation of large annual deficits. I am absolutely convinced that the long-term consequences of refusing to come to grips with the necessity to balance our budget will be catastrophic. And those who will pay the highest price for our fiscal responsibility, should we fail, will be those least able to protect themselves and the children of today and the generations of tomorrow.''

Mr. Speaker, this debate is about those who are least able to protect themselves, and this is about the vision that we have chosen for ourselves as Americans.

Mr. Speaker, 223 years ago, in a letter written in November, Thomas Jefferson said this: I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution. I mean an additional article taking from government the power of borrowing.

Our Founding Fathers, 223 years ago--folks talk about a bill being rushed to the floor. This is a debate that has been going on since the founding of our Nation, since the founding of our Nation. We had this discussion in 1995. We had this discussion in 1994. Every Congress for the 10 years between 1985 and 1995, we discussed a balanced budget amendment. Apparently, there was no need to discuss it any longer, and look where we are.

I was down in Chinatown the other day, Mr. Speaker, where, conveniently enough, our United States debt auctions were held, right downtown in Chinatown. We sold $36 billion of debt in Chinatown the day I was down there at 0.0005 percent interest. But hear this--I will close as I opened, Mr. Speaker--from our friends at S&P: ``We view an inability to timely agree and credibly implement medium-term fiscal consolidation policy as inconsistent with a AAA sovereign rating.''

Mr. Speaker, this isn't about raising the debt limit; this is about preserving the Republic. Go ahead and raise the debt limit; Moody's says that's not enough. Go ahead and raise the debt limit; S&P says that's not going to get you anywhere. Inconsistent with a AAA rating is the borrowing and spending that this Congress has brought to the House.

Now, we talked about rushing a bill to the House floor, Mr. Speaker. I'll say this, and some of my Democratic colleagues have said it, and I associate myself with their comments: This reflects the priorities of this House. What we're working on today is exactly what we were working on when we worked on H.R. 1 in February, one of the most open and brilliant moments in this House's history in terms of debate. Well, the priorities we are setting today are the same priorities we were setting when we had that very open budget debate earlier this year in April where we brought every budget to the House and said: What can we agree on as a House? And you know what we agreed, Mr. Speaker? We agreed on the priorities that are set forth in Cut, Cap, and Balance.

Now, there has been a lot of talk about who is willing to compromise. Mr. Speaker, I can't find a single colleague on this side of the aisle who is enthusiastic about raising the debt limit, not one. But folks are willing to do it if we can preserve the Republic for our children and grandchildren, which we can do with cut, cap, and balance.

Mr. Speaker, there's all of this talk in Washington about default on the national debt. That is a serious conversation, a serious conversation.

I want to talk about defaulting on the promises of our Founders. I want to talk about defaulting on our Republic. One wish Thomas Jefferson had, one wish: If it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution, it would be an additional article taking from government the power of borrowing.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that there's a lot of reluctance to do that. There are lots of great things that folks have, priorities that they would like to spend on. This isn't about those spending priorities. We'll still have that conversation. H.R. 1 was about those priorities. Our budget discussion was about our priorities. Today, it is about the future of our Republic. You need read no further, Mr. Speaker, than the credit rating agencies telling us that August 2 is not the date we have to fear. Today is the day that we have to fear because, if we fail to pass this bill, our Republic stands in peril.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for this rule. I am grateful to the Budget Committee for bringing forward this resolution, and I ask for a unanimous vote of support as this resolution comes to the floor.

The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 355 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

(1) Strike ``the previous question'' and all that follows

and insert the following:

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except: (1) four hours of debate equally

divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority

member of the Committee on the Budget; (2) the amendment

printed in section 2, if offered by the Minority Leader or

her designee, which shall be in order without intervention of

any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be

separately debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and

controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one

motion to recommit with or without instructions.

(2) At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in the first section of

this resolution is as follows:

At the end of the bill, insert the following:

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia, my friend, Mr. Woodall, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 5 minutes.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule and in even stronger opposition to the underlying bill. This is a closed rule.

My friend from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) was on the floor last week telling us how excited he was as we debated a modified open rule for a flood insurance bill. My friend talked about how proud he was of the open process that allowed Members to offer germane amendments to the bill. But here we are today considering legislation that would fundamentally transform the United States economy, gut many of the programs like Social Security and Medicare that millions of Americans rely upon, and make radical changes to the Constitution, and the Republican majority of the Rules Committee has brought it to the floor under a closed rule. No hearings. No witnesses. No markups. No nothing.

This bill was cobbled together last Friday night and rushed to the floor just a few days later. I wonder if my friend from Georgia is just as excited about this process, because I'm sure not.

Last night in the Rules Committee, I offered my friends on the other side of the aisle the opportunity to put their votes where their rhetoric is and support an open rule. They chose to vote ``no.'' Every single Republican member on the Rules Committee voted ``no.''

As for the underlying legislation, Mr. Speaker, I can't quite figure out if this is a meaningless exercise in political theater or an actual expression of Republican values. Frankly, I can't figure out which is worse. If it's theater, it would get lousy reviews. Both the White House and the Senate have made it very clear that they have no interest in supporting this bill. It's not going anywhere. Maybe it's just a rotten piece of red meat that the leadership is throwing to their right-wing base in anticipation of an actual agreement to raise the debt ceiling and cut the deficit. If so, it's a complete waste of this body's time. But if the Republican leadership means what they say, that they would like this bill to become the law of the land, it's a frightening prospect.

This legislation would result in staggering cuts to programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Pell Grants, medical research, and infrastructure, all while protecting tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans and corporations. The bill would require us to cut Federal spending as a percentage of GDP to a level not seen since 1965.

And we had a very interesting discussion in the Rules Committee last night about the significance of that date. One of my Republican colleagues noted that 1965 was a time when we enacted some of our ``so- called anti-poverty programs.'' And she's exactly right, Mr. Speaker.

Apparently, the Republican leadership would like to take America back to a time before Medicare, before Medicaid, before food stamps and school lunches, before Meals on Wheels and Head Start and Pell Grants. If that's their vision for America, Mr. Speaker, they should have the guts to stand on the floor and say so. But it's not my vision. It's not the vision of the people I represent in Massachusetts. It's not the vision of the American people who believe that in the richest society in the history of the world we have an obligation to make sure that the most vulnerable among us don't fall through the cracks.

At the same time, this bill would go out of its way to enshrine in the Constitution of the United States to protect tax cuts and loopholes for the richest 1 percent of Americans. Under this bill, Congress would need a mere majority to slash Medicare, but would need a supermajority to close a loophole that gives preferential treatment to owners of corporate jets. Talk about picking winners and losers, Mr. Speaker.

In the ongoing budget negotiations, the Republican leadership of this House have said that they will absolutely not consider raising any revenue to address the deficit and the debt, but listen to this: According to news reports, they're willing to force seniors receiving Medicare home health care to fork over new copays. So if an elderly woman in Worcester with diabetes has to pay more for a visiting nurse, the Republicans say so be it. But heaven forbid that oil companies making billions and billions of dollars in profits have to pay their fair share. Maybe they'll call those new copays ``user fees'' so that Grover Norquist and the Club for Growth will give them a pass. But tell the woman in Worcester who will be forced to go into a nursing home that her taxes didn't go up.

Mr. Speaker, this is an awful, awful bill brought to the floor under an awful, awful process. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this cynical effort and get back to work and meaningfully address the budget issues facing this Nation. Time is running out. We need to get to work to seriously resolve this crisis. Reject this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Polis.

Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. Under the Republican plan, they will cut Social Security and Medicare by $6,000 per senior citizen. Talk about a tax increase.

At this point, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

I just want to say to the gentleman from Georgia the reason why the President issued a veto threat is because he doesn't want you to destroy Social Security and Medicare, two of the most important social programs in this country that benefit millions and millions of seniors.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Honda.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from Louisiana that we can't compete without investments in innovation and infrastructure and education, and the bill that my Republican friends have brought before us today on the floor would devastate this economy. It would absolutely devastate the American economy.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

(Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, I just would like to respond to the gentlelady from Tennessee.

When she talks about the need for political will, what we need is the political will to stand up to Big Oil and to end subsidies that amount to corporate welfare.

The bill that my Republican colleagues are bringing to the floor today let's them off the hook and, instead, goes after the poor and the most vulnerable and our senior citizens. That's why this bill is so outrageous, because they are so unfair.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. Does the gentleman have additional speakers?

He didn't answer any of them last night; so I'm not sure whether we will get many answers here today.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, once again I stand in strong opposition to this closed rule and to the underlying bill.

It's time for a grown-up moment, Mr. Speaker. It's time for the Members of the House, Republican and Democrat, to come together to address the looming crisis over the debt limit. We are exactly 2 weeks away from the possibility of the United States defaulting on its obligations of not paying its bills. This is not an acceptable outcome.

I know that there are some on the other side of the aisle--in fact I talked to one just this morning--who will not vote for anything that raises the debt ceiling. That's unfortunate. Default would result in collapsing markets and skyrocketing interest rates. It would deal a devastating blow to the full faith and credit of the United States. It would throw even more Americans out of work. The bill before us does nothing to prevent that outcome.

Slashing Medicare and Social Security while protecting tax cuts for the wealthy is not a responsible solution. I think the American people have made it clear in poll after poll after poll. They have said to my Republican colleagues, keep your hands off of Medicare and off of Social Security.

What my Republican colleagues are trying to do with this legislation is lower the standard of living for our senior citizens. They deserve a hell of a lot better. The fact of the matter is our senior citizens have built this country, they have worked hard to make this country what is today. They deserve better from this Congress. They should

not have to pay to balance this budget because they did not cause this economic crisis.

It is just simply unfair to protect all this corporate welfare, all these tax loopholes to protect corporations with jets and to protect corporations so they don't have to pay taxes, and they can incorporate overseas in Bermuda or the Cayman Islands. It is just wrong. It is wrong to continue these subsidies to Big Oil that have made billions and billions and billions of dollars. Why aren't they paying their fair share?

And Mr. Speaker, it is just wrong to radically alter the Constitution of the United States of America. We need to focus on jobs, and innovation plus infrastructure plus education equals jobs. We have to invest as well as cut. This bill would slash the investments we need to put people back to work and to grow our economy. It cuts Pell Grants. It would cut education at every level. It would cut monies for roads and bridges. It would cut money that would help this economy grow that can help put more people back to work so we can start reducing the debt in a responsible way.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of this debate, I will ask the House to defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment that will ensure that this bill does nothing to impede job increases and economic growth. So a vote in favor of the previous question is a vote to increase unemployment and to threaten our economic recovery.

Given the fact that you gave us a closed rule, I don't think it's too much to ask that we have at least some language in here that protects jobs and that would protect the American worker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, reject this closed rule that is unfair, and reject the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.

I am just overwhelmed with the words ``breathtakingly arrogant policies.'' I am literally shocked, and let me tell you why.

When you want to understand, my Republican friends, why we're in the position we're in, what about the 37.5 percent of the debt being the Bush-era tax cuts of which this bill and any of your negotiations don't in any way suggest revenue?--which the American people understand.

Arrogant policies by the President? The Recovery and Reinvestment was only 5.2 percent, creating 3 million jobs. Let me say that again: 3 million jobs. The economic downturn came about with the Iraq war and others.

So, today, my friends come on the floor of the House with the Cut, Cap, and Balance. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, let me suggest to you that the amendments that were put in the bill have destroyed any sense of balance to the balanced budget amendment.

I have a new name for the bill, the bill which tap dances around the question of revenue and lifting the debt ceiling, which was done 60-plus times over America's lifetime with Reagan, Carter, President Bush and President Bush, and Clinton. So it's the ``Tap Dance, Losers' Club and Bust the benefits bill.'' The losers are seniors and young people and those who need Social Security and those

who are disabled. Then, finally, instead of the balanced budget amendment, it is the bust the benefits of those who are in need and of the young people who are looking forward to a prosperous future and expanded opportunities in this Nation.

What do we need?--not the Cut, Cap, and Balance. It in no way invests in America. It in no way ends the tax loopholes that are part of our increasing debt. It will block the United States Congress from closing the loopholes of those who make billions of dollars every 3 months. We need innovation, infrastructure and education. That equals jobs.

Parents, I don't want to see the end of your children's opportunities by closing elementary and high schools and by disallowing them from going to college. That is what this bill is--not to cut, not to cap, not to balance. It's the ``Tap Dance, Losers' Club, and Bust the Benefits of the American People bill.'' Let me suggest to you that these are the losers of this bill. Don't support a bill that will cause the American people to lose the American Dream.

I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2560, the ``Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011,'' which attempts to resolve our budget ceiling crisis by authorizing an increase in the debt limit while implementing spending cuts, caps on future spending, and requiring an amendment to the Constitution. While I support bipartisan efforts to increase the debt limit, I cannot support a bill that is a clear attempt to enact the policies embedded in the Republican budget resolution and to then enshrine the Republican budget in our Nation's Constitution.

This bill should be called the ``Tap Dance, Loser Club, and Bust Bill.'' It tap dances around raising our debt ceiling and acting in a responsible manner to pay our Nation's debt obligations. Our Nation will be joining the losers club by threatening to eliminate important social programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and Pell grants. There has been a theme this Congress of focusing on cutting programs for the most at need and ignoring the need to focus on job creation. This bill busts the hopes and dreams of our children, seniors, and military families. It busts the hopes to grow our Nation in the future. H.R. 2560 has earned the name the ``Tap Dance, Loser Club, and Bust Bill.'' I will call it that from this point forward, because that is what it is . . . when something walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck . . . Call it a duck!!!! This bill is wasting a tremendous amount of time when we should be focused on paying our Nation's bills and resolving our differences!

I stand here today to state firmly that increasing the debt ceiling is the responsible thing to do. Congress has already debated and approved the debt that an increased ceiling makes room for. However, my Republican colleagues have chosen to use this as an opportunity to hold the American people hostage to their extreme agenda. They know that the ``Tap Dance Loser Club, and Bust Bill'' is not a realistic proposal.

The fact that Congress, a body that typically has its fair share of political battles, has never played political chicken when it came to raising the debt ceiling should give us all pause, and is a testament to the seriousness with which we must approach this issue. However, this time around, my Republican colleagues have created an impasse based upon an ideological commitment to spending cuts. While I understand and share the concern of my Republican colleagues with respect to deficit spending, and will continue to work with them in order to find reductions, now is not the time to put ideology over pragmatism. The reality is that, on August 3rd, the United States will begin to default on its debt obligations if the debt ceiling is not raised.

This detour into a spending debate is as unnecessary as it is perilous, as increasing the debt ceiling does not obligate the undertaking of any new spending by the Federal Government. Rather, raising the debt limit simply allows the government to pay existing legal obligations promised to debt holders that were already agreed to by Presidents and Congresses, both past and present.

Moreover, the impending crisis would have already occurred were it not for the extraordinary measures taken by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, including the suspension of the investment in securities to finance the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, as well as the redemption of a portion of those securities already held by that fund.

If the United States defaults on its obligations on August 3rd, the stock market will react violently to the news that for the first time in history, America is unable to keep its promises to pay. Not once in American history has the country's full faith and credit been called into question.

Once America defaults, investors who purchase U.S. bonds and finance our government will be less likely to lend to America in the future. Just as a person who defaults on a loan will find it harder to convince banks to lend them money in the future, a country that defaults on its debt obligations will find it harder to convince investors to lend money to a government that did not pay. Showing the world that the United States does not pay its debts makes the purchasing of that debt less desirable because it requires the assumption of more risk on the part of the investors.

Furthermore, any investors that do continue to purchase U.S. Treasury bonds will demand much higher interest rates in order to cover the increased risk. Once a default occurs, investors figure that the chance of the United States defaulting again is much greater, and will require the government to pay higher rates of interest in order to make the loan worth the risk for investors to take on.

Imagine the impact on our stock market if we do not pay our debts. As we have seen throughout the recent financial crisis, a bad stock market hurts not only big businesses and large investors on Wall Street, but small businesses and small investors as well. Families with investments tied to the stock market, such as 401(k)s, pension plans, and savings, will once again see the value of their investments drop. The American people are tired of the uncertainty of the value of their retirement accounts. We must not allow another wild fluctuation to occur due to default and add to the uncertainty still lingering in the minds of citizens.

As if another stock market crisis were not enough, the housing market would take another hit if America defaulted. Higher mortgage rates in a housing market already weakened by default and foreclosures would cause a further depression of home values, destroying whatever equity families might have left in their homes after the housing crisis. Moreover, the long-term effects would reduce spending and investment in the housing market.

Republicans are attempting to place into our constitution the requirement that we balance the budget every year. In reality, achieving a balanced budget is not something that should automatically be required every year. For example, during economic downturns, the government can stimulate growth by cutting taxes and increasing spending. A constitutional amendment requiring us to cut spending to match revenue every year would limit our ability to respond to changing fiscal conditions and would dramatically impede federal responses to high unemployment as well as federal guarantees for food and medical assistance.

As it stands, H.J. Res. 1 requires spending cuts even deeper than those in this bill; in fact, it requires that spending be cut to the levels in the Republican Study Committee budget, levels that were so extreme that fewer than half of House Republicans voted for that budget. Finally, requiring a two-thirds vote to approve revenue increases creates a barrier to fixing inequities in our tax code by protecting more than $1 trillion in spending through the tax code-- spending that often benefits special interests, like owners of corporate jets--and well-to-do Americans.

H.R. 2560 cuts $111 billion in FY 2012, places firm caps on future spending, and is contingent upon House and Senate passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment.

H.R. 2560, is yet another attempt to enact the policies that Republicans approved with their budget resolution this spring--to end the Medicare guarantee while continuing tax breaks for special interests and the wealthy. It requires immediate and steep spending cuts starting this October that will put more Americans out of work while the country is still recovering from the worst recession since the Great Depression. It caps total spending--including mandatory spending programs, such as unemployment benefits, that are designed to grow when the economy is bad--for fiscal years 2013-2021 at lower percentages of the economy (Gross Domestic Product, or GDP).

While it is clear that the country cannot continue on an unsustainable fiscal path, the bill limits spending to a percentage of GDP that the country has rarely achieved in the past. For example, the bill limits total outlays to 19.7 percent of GDP in 2018; outlays were at or below that level in only 12 of the last 43 years (from 1997 through 2004, and from 1969 through 1972).

Enforces the Republican budget resolution by limiting total federal outlays--including Social Security and Medicare--at the Republican budget's percentage of GDP in fiscal years 2013 through 2021. Automatic sequestration again would occur if the levels are breached. More immediately.

H.R. 2560 requires passage of a specific type of a so-called ``balanced budget'' constitutional amendment by both the House and the Senate before the debt limit can be increased. This new hurdle makes it even harder for Congress to increase the debt limit by August 2, which it must do to avoid fiscal calamity and higher interest costs for consumers and the government alike.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, today is an historic today. We have an opportunity in this body to send a strong signal to the country that we're going to live within our means. At the heart of this discussion is a discussion about whether or not our country is going to live within its means.

What we ask for at the heart of this proposal is that we balance our budget. It's something that families do. It's something that businesses do. A balanced budget amendment is something that 49 States across the country have.

Unfortunately, in Congresses past, Presidents past, we have not lived within our means. I have heard the argument that says, Oh, we don't need a constitutional amendment; we just need to do our job.

Madam Speaker, we find this Nation more than $14 trillion in debt. We're paying more than $600 million a day in interest on that debt. Now imagine, imagine the United States of America without that debt. We don't get anything for that $600 million. But it's an obligation. We need to live up to those obligations.

What this bill says is very simple:

We're going to cut. We're going to make an immediate cut to some spending, a paltry $111 billion in the first year. Number two, we're going to cap as a percentage of our gross domestic product the amount of money that we're going to spend going forward so that there are targets in place for future Congresses to consider and weigh and make the good decisions that need to be made. How are we going to prioritize things? And, number three, we are going to seek to have a balanced budget amendment come to the floor of the House, come to the Senate, and pass both bodies.

If we can make that historic move and pass to the States a balanced budget amendment, then we will solve the underlying challenge that faces this country: We are spending too much money. I think everybody understands that. But the question is: Are we really going to do something about it?

The question for the President, the question for this body moving forward, is: Do we have the fortitude to actually put before the States an amendment? That's all we ask. Can the States have a say in this?

To my Senate colleagues, Madam Speaker, I would encourage them, they are to represent the States. What are they afraid of if they won't send a balanced budget amendment forward for their ratification?

We have to change the way we do business in Washington, D.C. America gets it. America understands it. But this body, in its history, has not lived up to that call. The future of our Nation depends upon it.

There is going to be all kinds of rhetoric about how we're cutting Medicare. It's not true. It simply says we're going to have to put ourselves on a glide path to get some fiscal sanity back here.

Now, there is a timetable that is before us. We're going to run out of money. We're spending money we don't have. But there is a timetable before us. And so in just 2 weeks, we're going to come upon this deadline. This is a real plan that can solve the problem and something that should be widely embraced on both sides of the aisle.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would ask the gentleman if he could give us a copy of that plan right now here during this debate, we would certainly appreciate it.

The second thing is what we're talking about is a balanced budget. That's really what we're talking about.

I now yield 1 minute to our leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

For 2 years under Barack Obama, the Democrats had the House and Senate and the Presidency, you didn't do a thing to touch those so-called ``loopholes.'' To try to feign how exasperated you are at this point is somewhat disingenuous to somebody who sat here for 2 years with you having the House, the Senate, and the Presidency and doing nothing about it.

What we're fighting for is more taxpayers, not more taxes. When the President said he was going to veto this bill, it provided a whole lot of clarity to a guy like me. Because if we can't find common ground on balancing the budget--how dare we offer that we want to balance the budget? That's all we ask for in this country, is put us on a trajectory to balance the budget.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), the chairman of the House Policy Committee.

Madam Speaker, the only thing Cut, Cap, and Balance is bad for is for Members of Congress because we are going to actually rein in spending. They're actually going to have to live within a balanced budget.

I would also highlight rule XXI, section 5(b). I have heard a lot of rhetoric in the news and other places about how there is going to be such a higher standard. It should be noted that the passage of a tax rate increase, a bill or joint resolution, amendment, or conference report carrying a Federal income tax rate increase may not be considered as passed or agreed to unless so determined by a vote of not less than three-fifths of the Members voting.

It was that same standard and threshold when Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker of the House as it is today, so we have had that higher standard for raising taxes. That is nothing new.

At this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble), a freshman Member.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores), a member of the House Budget Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I love that: foolish gimmicks, balancing our budget.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I believe the gentleman said he would answer a question if we asked it on our time. The question I have for the gentleman is: Would you support any balanced budget amendment? Is there any balanced budget amendment that you would support?

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

It's just a ``yes'' or ``no.''

It's a simple ``yes'' or ``no.''

Reclaiming my time----

Reclaiming my time, I will now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee, Diane Black, who is here as a freshman in the House of Representatives.

We have 9 percent-plus unemployment, Madam Speaker. We've been north of that for a long time. And we're now also saddled with more than $14 trillion in debt.

I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), who is on the Budget Committee.

Madam Speaker, I can hear the chant on the other side with regard to the some 90 times the debt ceiling has been raised. That's the problem. I can hear the chant on the other side: One more time. One more time. One more time.

That's why we're in this mess. It's that Congresses in the past have not heeded the call. They have not said, ``Enough is enough.'' Now, as our debt ceiling starts to reach a panic, we're going to get close to 100 percent of our gross domestic product.

Enough is enough.

I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, at any time we would love to see the Democrats' plan.

If you could actually slide it across the table to us, we would certainly appreciate it.

I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).

(Mr. HUELSKAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

It's always compelling, Mr. Speaker, when they have to use a poll to figure out how to do public policymaking. And to suggest that there would be no more mortgages is just fantasy. It's amazing what gets made up in this discussion instead of a serious discussion about balancing our books.

I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).

Mr. Speaker, all we ask for is a balanced budget amendment. All we ask for is for people to live within their means. If you listen to the Democrats and what they suggest, just go ahead and spend more. Go ahead and keep racking it up on the credit card. There are no consequences. There are consequences.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta).

Mr. Speaker, the President submitted a budget, a budget that never balances. In fact, it doubles and triples the debt. It went to the United States Senate, and 97-0--97-0--not one Democrat voted in favor of that.

Has the President submitted any sort of adjustment or amendment to that? No, he has not. The reality is this President has no plan. We have a plan. We can solve the underlying problem and take care of paying our bills on August 2.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a member of the Budget Committee.