Floor Statements

Will the gentleman yield?

I genuinely hope it does become the law. I think the American people deserve this Federal Government to live within the confines of a balanced budget amendment.

If the gentleman will yield, I don't take cash bets. But you know what? You also talked about bouncing; and the only thing that's going to bounce is the government's check.

I'm sorry. I thought he yielded to me. I apologize.

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.

Routinely, the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, has made the allegation that the President has offered a balanced plan. I would argue that he has offered neither. The President has never introduced a balanced plan. He's never had anything that's in balance. In fact, the budget that he submitted never balances. In fact, it doubles and then triples the debt. It went before the United States Senate, and 97-0 that budget was rejected, rejected by the United States Senate. So to suggest that he's offered something in balance is not true.

The second part of this, he has not introduced a plan to deal with this crisis that we're in. There is no piece of paper. There's lots of speeches. There are lots of things like going out and doing press conferences. But we need a solution.

What cut, cap, and balance does is it not only solves the short-term problem--it starts to put us in the right pathway--but it actually sends it to the States. And, ladies and gentlemen, what should we be afraid of? All we're asking to do is put forward a balanced budget amendment and send it to the State with a very high threshold, where three out of four States would have to ratify it in order for it to become an amendment to the Constitution.

We keep spending money that we don't have. Every time we look at a decision, we have to understand we're asking to pull money out of somebody's pocket and give it to somebody else. Those days are gone.

I came to Washington, D.C., to change the way we do business. Cut, cap, and balance will do that. We need a balanced budget amendment. The choice is clear: Are you in favor of a balanced budget or not? That's what's before us today, and that's the direction this country needs to go to get its fiscal house in order.

A short time ago, the President issued an administration policy statement saying that he would veto Cut, Cap, and Balance.

I appreciate the President's offering a moment of clarity. He said: ``Instead of pursuing an empty political statement and unrealistic policy goals, it is necessary to move beyond politics as usual and find bipartisan common ground.''

All we ask is that we balance our budget. For the President to suggest that balancing our budget is not common ground does provide clarity.

This President has no plan to balance our budget. The budget that he submitted never balances. In fact, it doubles and triples the debt.

We're asking that if the President wants to raise the debt ceiling, we must solve the underlying problem; and the underlying problem is we're borrowing, taxing, and spending too much money in this country.

The President says, ``passing a balanced budget amendment that, in the years ahead, will likely leave the Nation unable to meet its core commitment of ensuring dignity in retirement.''

Mr. President, if we don't balance this budget, if we don't take care of our debt, if we don't pay off our debts, this country will be bankrupt.

We're spending and borrowing too much money. We can no longer borrow 40 cents out of every dollar in this country. That's why we must pass Cut, Cap, and Balance.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Offered By: Mr. Chaffetz

Amendment No. 40: Page 24, line 18, after the dollar amount

insert ``(reduced by $32,464,000)''.

Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $32,464,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Chaffetz

Amendment No. 37: Page 52, line 15, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $68,400,000)''.

Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $68,400,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Chaffetz

Amendment No. 38: Page 53, line 7, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $11,700,000)''.

Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $11,700,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Chaffetz

Amendment No. 39: Page 53, line 13, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $10,700,000)''.

Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $10,700,000)''.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment to limit the subsidies for mohair.

Mohair is something that back in World War II we needed for our military uniforms. The problem is we haven't used mohair in our military uniforms since the Korean war, and yet the subsidies still continue. So this is a commonsense amendment to simply limit this. This is roughly $1 million a year. This is something that Congresses previously had eliminated. It crept back in.

And this limitation amendment that I would offer, I would urge my colleagues to vote for. My understanding is there's no opposition on either side of the aisle.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I would hope this body would take this amendment with the same pace we did the mohair subsidies, but perhaps not.

This amendment seeks to eliminate the cotton and peanut storage payments that we have been making. I would point out to my colleagues that President Obama recommended terminating this program in his fiscal 2012 budget. No other agriculture commodities receive this type of assistance.

I would like to read a paragraph that's found on the WhiteHouse.gov Web site:

The credits allow producers to store their cotton and peanuts at the government's cost until prices rise. Therefore, storage credits have a negative impact on the amount of commodities on the market. Because storage is covered by the government, producers may store their commodities for longer than necessary. There is no reason the government should be paying for the storage of cotton or peanuts, particularly since it does not provide this assistance for any other commodities.

I happen to concur with the President on this. I hope my colleagues would find this to be a commonsense amendment to say we should not be specifying winners and losers. In this particular case, we're going to offer a storage credit for just cotton and just peanuts. It's something that I think should be eliminated. I would hope the body would concur. I would hope we would understand we're going to have to make some changes in the way we do things. This is one instance where I actually agree with the President. I'm proud to stand in support of that and would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this amendment deals with three different services within the Department of Agriculture. The idea and the goal of the situation here is that perhaps they could take a reduction in funding, not totally zero them out, and really look at these duplicative programs as being something that can be ultimately unified over the course of time. My amendment simply drives down the cost of these, and the hope and desire is that they will somehow unify to do and accomplish what these duplicative services are. This relates to the Agricultural Research Service, the Economic Research Service, and the National Agriculture Statistics Service.

Now, the one other one that I would also point out that is funded is the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, where we are not suggesting a reduction in the amount. But the overall goal here is to reduce the amount of the expenditure here 50 percent from 2011 and 43 percent from the current bill. I think this is common sense.

We have to make difficult decisions. We recognize the value the Department of Agriculture brings. A lot of people rely on these types of statistics and information that is needed so that we can make sure that we have the very best Department of Agriculture that we can.

But in these tough and difficult economic times, it is imperative that we make difficult decisions. And sometimes that means we are looking at duplicative programs, maybe scaling those back a little bit, and refocusing the mission so that they can actually do what matters most and prioritize their own mission.

So we think it is the financially responsible thing to do. I would urge my colleagues to look closely at this. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you. I will be brief, Madam Chair. I recognize the spirit in which you are doing this, and I appreciate the process and the back-and-forth.

I did want to say for the record, I would join with the gentlewoman from Texas, and I have advocated for a long time that we pull out of Afghanistan and that we put that towards deficit reduction. But I also think we have to bring back discretionary spending even further.

And I would like to mention to this body that really what happens with the so-called Ryan budget, the budget that this House passed, is that sets ceilings but it doesn't set floors, and I believe that one of the greatest threats in security to our future is the out-of-control debt and deficit that this country is encompassing.

Let's also remember that we spend in the neighborhood of $40 billion on U.S. aid. We haven't been able to take care of our own pocketbooks in our own country, and so it's very difficult to justify not only a very healthy and robust USAID budget--by the way, having conducted oversight is not necessarily accountable. You can't go back and actually look at the accounting and see where all this money is flowing and what it's doing. But let's also remember that then we still have tens of billions of dollars to help people across the world. We have 149 countries in this world that are getting USAID money. They're getting aid from the United States of America through various programs.

So, again, I would just want to briefly say I do think we can do better. I think we have to do better. The out-of-control spending in the past puts us in a perilous position where we spend $600 million a day just in interest on our debt. And so when I look at $1.8 billion in reduction and I look at the fact that our interest payment is $600 million a day, the best thing we could probably do for the world and certainly for ourselves is to get that deficit under control. We could do a lot more good in this world if we were to take care of our own financial pocketbooks, and we have not yet done that.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. I appreciate the spirit of this body allowing me to add this extra comment.

Offered By: Mr. Chaffetz

Amendment No. 13: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Chaffetz

Amendment No. 14: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

This is a defining moment for us as a people. This is a defining moment for this body. This is a defining moment for the United States Constitution.

With the civil war in North Africa, there is no clear and present danger to the United States of America. Therefore, in acts of war, the President has a constitutional duty and obligation to come to the Congress to seek approval. For the President to suggest that he got approval from the United Nations is offensive, and it's wrong.

No, Mr. President. Authorization to go to war comes from the American people, and it comes from the United States Congress. We must stand tall and true to the Constitution. We have no choice but to vote on this action. This is a defining moment.

What is absent in all this discussion, I'd point out to my colleagues, is I see no resolution to go to war. I don't see a resolution that says this is what we should be doing.

Please vote in favor of this amendment. Stand true and tall for the Constitution. This is a defining moment.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Offered By: Mr. Chaffetz

Amendment No. 29: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Chaffetz

Amendment No. 30: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Chaffetz

Amendment No. 29: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following: