Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for bringing this forward.

I know that down through the ages there has been this great question that has occurred to mankind, and it is a similar one: Is God God or is man God? In God do we trust or in man do we trust? I would submit to you that the answer to that question, Mr. Chairman, is one of profound significance.

Indeed, Christopher Columbus trusted in God, and his service to God was to go out and search the world to find ways to do things that would honor God, and he ran into this place called America. Indeed, those who were colonists that first came to America came here because they wanted to worship God; they wanted to find a way to honor God. Indeed, the Founding Fathers that started this country did so in the name of God. So their trust in God has had a profound impact on those of us that live in this day.

And I would submit to you that if we answer the question the other way, if man is God, then an atheist state is as brutal as the thesis that it rests upon and there is no longer any reason for us to gather here in this place. We should just let anarchy prevail because, after all, we are just worm food. So indeed we have the time to reaffirm that God is God and in God do we trust.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1002) to restrict any State or local jurisdiction from imposing a new discriminatory tax on cell phone services, providers, or property, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1002, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Congresswoman Lofgren and I introduced H.R. 1002 with the broad bipartisan support of 144 original cosponsors. We now have 236 cosponsors, and I want to thank Ms. Lofgren for her hard work on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, access to wireless networks represents a key component of millions of Americans' livelihoods, providing the efficient communication capabilities, whether by phone, broadband Internet or otherwise, necessary to run a successful business.

The exorbitant discriminatory taxes on wireless customers are not only unfair, they are counterintuitive, adding yet another costly impediment to the success of so many American businesses who are struggling in the midst of a prolonged recession and an already hefty tax burden. Low-income and senior Americans who frequently rely on wireless service as their sole means of telephone and Internet access also bear the brunt of this discriminatory tax's impact.

H.R. 1002, the Wireless Tax Fairness Act, provides a balanced approach that protects the revenue needs of States and localities, while allowing for a 5-year hiatus on new discriminatory wireless taxes, encouraging States and localities to develop a national tax regime that maintains the affordability of a wireless service.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this constitutionally sound, pro-consumer bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina, the chairman of the Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee, Mr. Coble.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, many points have been made about discriminatory taxes and their impact on businesses and individuals. For all the reasons that were so eloquently put forth by the gentlelady from California, we would urge the support of this legislation, and I would again thank the gentlelady for her tremendous effort in this area and on this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I certainly thank the distinguished chairman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, first let me just congratulate Mr. Gosar on the introduction and passage of this legislation. He has done an amazing job in helping this legislation get to where it is now, and I have every confidence that he will see it through to the end.

Mr. Chairman, according to a United States Geological Survey report, the United States currently imports over 30 percent of the country's copper demand. And in 2010 alone, domestic copper production decreased by another 5 percent; it decreased by another 5 percent.

And just as relying on foreign oil imports threatens national security, relying on foreign copper suppliers also threatens U.S. industry. We must use domestic resources to meet that growing demand; and this legislation is a major step in the right direction, producing enough copper to meet as much as 25 percent of America's current demand.

The Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act would open up the third largest undeveloped copper resource in the world, creating new American jobs, reducing our dependence on foreign sources of energy

and minerals, and generating tens of billions of dollars in revenue.

Now, in the midst of a prolonged recession, Mr. Chairman, that has hit Arizona very hard, we really cannot afford not to pass this legislation because it so uniformly benefits our labor force, our State and local governments and conservationists who would benefit from much of the high-value land exchange in opening this land to mining.

I would just encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. It's time that America begins to produce our own energy and our own minerals and to get back on track to being the greatest Nation in the history of the world.

I certainly thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, when ObamaCare was being unceremoniously rammed through this Congress against the will of the American people, Democrats tried to assure everyone that it was all about compassion.

But, Madam Speaker, nothing so completely destroys the notion that ObamaCare was ever about compassion more than the tragic determination on the part of the Democratic leadership to include the killing of little children by abortion in its provisions.

Now, Madam Speaker, as we face a debt that grows by $4 billion under the strain of Mr. Obama's record-setting spending every day, maybe we should all ask ourselves a question, and that is, is setting aside millions of taxpayer dollars to pay for the killing of innocent unborn children really one of our financial priorities?

And if it is, we should ask another question, and that is, what in God's name has become of all of us?

I certainly thank the gentleman very much. I know that Texas and Arizona are kin in a lot of different ways, and I appreciate all the good work that you do; and I certainly thank Mr. Poe.

I suppose it's important for us first to just restate the obvious, that the President's most fundamental duty is to protect our country. This recent attempted attack, which could have resulted in an act of war if they'd been

successful, I think reveals two very glaring examples of President Obama's abject failure to adequately fulfill his responsibility to protect our southern borders and the failure to respond to a terrorist regime on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons.

The main terrorist attempting to organize these attacks on our soil sought to hire members of the Mexican drug cartel known as the Zetas-- I'm sure you folks have discussed that already--partly because of their seemingly unfettered access to weaponry. It's an astonishing irony to me, Mr. Carter, that it was the Obama Department of Justice that was involved in allowing just such weaponry to be walked across the border into the waiting arms of Mexican drug cartels like the Zetas.

Yesterday's foiled plot underscores the serious nature of the allegations surrounding Operation Fast and Furious; and, of course, I think it's very appropriate that Attorney General Holder has now been rightly subpoenaed. Beyond any shadow of a doubt, this momentous event establishes that Iran is committed enough to try to foment an attack upon the United States.

There are really only two fundamental components to any threat to our national security. One is intent. The second is capacity. If this doesn't clarify once again in the starkest terms Iran's intent, I don't know what it will take to wake this administration up. The frightening part about it is that this same regime has gone on unabated for years now, inexorably and inevitably pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. This administration has been asleep at the wheel, and I can't express to you how dangerous I believe that is.

Last year, General David Petraeus announced that Iran was directly assisting al Qaeda. Shortly thereafter, General Raymond Odierno, now Chief of Staff of the Army, said Iran was funding and training insurgent groups in Iraq. Furthermore, in a report last September, he indicated that Iran was also funding Taliban efforts to kill American troops in Afghanistan.

This is a pattern here; and if they are committed enough to try to foment an attack here and literally try to blow up the Israeli embassy here or to kill the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the U.S., let me suggest to you that the intent is so clear that our entire focus now should be upon dealing with the capacity.

And this administration should have the courage now to take this moment to stand up and say to the whole world that America will not let Iran gain nuclear weapons with which to threaten the entire human family, even if it means a military response on the part of the United States.

They need to make that very clear, and this is the moment to do that, because I would suggest to you that there is an effort by Iran to create a hegemony in the Middle East that's causing a lot of the Middle Eastern countries now to flock to Iran's side out of absolute sniveling terror that Iran will gain a nuclear weapons capability.

I would just say to you that if Iran does do this, not only will it change the history of humanity, not only will we all be stepping into the shadow of nuclear terrorism, but history will record that this President was the one that stood by and allowed that to happen. I would suggest to you that that is a complete abrogation of Presidential duty.

Perhaps this President would do better if he were able to focus on the threats of our Nation without being so busy apologizing for America at every opportunity. It's been reported the State Department under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, that they called to express condolences to the family of al Qaeda propagandist Samir Khan, who was killed in the same attack that took out Anwar Awlaki.

It's a difficult thing to say or ask, but I just wonder if the Obama State Department called all of the families of the victims of the terrorism that these two men fomented in the world, especially those perhaps who died at Fort Hood. I am just astonished that this President is so busy apologizing to the families of terrorists that I wonder if he has time to defend this country.

We have an administration that not only refuses to enforce our immigration laws, but then allows weapons to pass to the very criminals from whom they are given charge to protect Americans from, and then they sue the States who step in, like Arizona, and try to enforce immigration laws themselves.

Meanwhile, Mr. Carter, I just suggest to you that it is just astonishing that we have to sit here and have this conversation while the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, is drawing closer and closer to building a functional nuclear weapons capability that they could pass on to their terrorist proxies, some of which are believed to be operating near the same unsecured southern border.

Just the fact that Iran was willing to try to bring in the Mexican drug lords, the Zeta gangs, is proof that they're willing to try to pass some of their deeds off to proxies. Now, if that becomes a nuclear weapons capability, then the world's in trouble and there's just no way I can conjure words strong enough to describe the insanity of this administration's lackadaisical, irresponsible approach to national defense. I wish I could.

If the gentleman would yield, I serve on the Strategic Forces Committee and am familiar with some of the designs of our nuclear warheads, and this is certainly open-source material.

But the fact is that a couple of people in a large red wagon can pull a W88 nuclear warhead across the border if they wanted to. Then people say, well, how could they ever do that? How could they ever bring a nuclear warhead across the border? The remark that I think clearly illustrates the significance of the possibility is maybe they could just hide it in a bale of marijuana. That would help them get it across.

So the fact that terrorists are beginning to move in this direction where they're getting so bold that they're willing to try to foment attacks on American soil, let me suggest to you that it's very late in the day, Mr. Carter, and I think maybe we missed one other point, that is, that in blowing up the Israeli embassy, that would be an act of war against Israel, because that would be Israeli soil in terms of our entire architecture for diplomacy.

Yet there was no hesitancy on the part of these terrorists to try to foment exactly that outcome and, again, if it had occurred, if they had been successful, it would have been nothing short of an act of war on the United States. Yet this administration is strangely quiet, and I wonder what this body should do to try to wake up this administration.

Yes, sir, I agree. Speaking of our allies, I was just in Israel not long ago, and I have to say to you, you understand that a lot of us--and I know including you, Congressman Carter--believe that Israel is our most reliable, most vital ally in the world.

Yet they feel under siege right now because they don't sense that this administration truly has their best interest in mind, partly because the Obama administration has reserved more open rebuke for Israel building homes in its own capital city than it has reserved for people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for building nuclear weapons to threaten the entire human family. And I find that lack of priority beyond my ability to articulate.

I just think that sometimes it's very easy for all of us as Americans. We've grown so used to being the most secure Nation in the world, and we owe that to the greatest military and the greatest men and women wearing the uniform that any nation could ever have.

But we've grown complacent and we, I think, have forgotten the seriousness and the reality of nuclear weapons. And we're living in a world now where countries like Pakistan have a major arsenal. If there is some sort of breakdown in the hierarchy in Pakistan or if Iran gains nuclear weapons, there's a lot of very dangerous circumstances facing this country.

I just think that somehow the lack of priority frightens me because this administration seems so focused on so many other things rather than doing what's necessary.

I haven't heard the outrage from this administration even related to this Iran-Mexican drug cartel effort. I haven't heard the strident outrage that you hear on a lot of other issues that they put forth. I just suggest to you, Congressman Carter, I hope that the people of this country will somehow let their Members of Congress and their President understand that the first responsibility we all have to offer them is security.

I know we're all focused on the economy of this country and jobs, and I certainly recognize the significance of that and the importance of it. But do we realize what would happen to our civil laws, to our liberties, do we realize what would happen to our economy if we had a major nuclear weapons attack on this country by terrorists? I mean, I don't think any of us would ever sleep again. The damage that could be caused is almost beyond my imagination, and yet again this administration seems focused on other things.

Well, you know, I couldn't agree with you more. We have to realize that the criminal element reads our intent. They know how serious we are. And terrorists across the world don't really believe that Barack Obama is serious about doing what's necessary, not only to identify clearly the difference between freedom and terrorism. I mean, they're calling the war on terror now overseas contingencies. They're using all these euphemisms. You know, I wonder, maybe now they'll say the drug cartels are merely unlicensed pharmacists. When we use words that don't reflect the truth and reflect the reality, we are undermined from the very beginning.

My concern is that Iran doesn't take this President seriously. They have put explosive form penetrators in the war in Iraq that have killed many of our soldiers. They've sent weapons to Afghanistan. And now they're trying to send drug cartels into our country to help blow up our embassies, and this administration allows them to continue on this inexorable march to gaining nuclear weapons.

And I just want to tell you, I'm afraid of something tonight. Again, it

frightens me, like a lot of other things that we've talked about tonight, and that is that I'm afraid that this administration has embraced the notion that it's too late to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, and that they're going to go ahead and allow them to do that and then pursue a policy of containment when they do. I cannot find the words to express how dangerous that policy is and how it will damn this and future generations if we allow that policy to take hold.

If Iran gains nuclear weapons capability, history itself is divided because for the first time a jihadist rogue nation will have its finger on the nuclear button. And whatever challenges we face to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, whatever they are, and I know that they are myriad and significant, but they will pale in insignificance compared to the problems we'll have after Iran gains nuclear weapons. It will change the world for all of us.

And I would just join with you and call upon the administration to refocus their efforts on the central duty of the President of the United States and upon this government, which is to protect the lives and constitutional rights of our citizens, and that starts with national security. And whether it's a porous border or whether it's allowing a country like Iran whose leaders have made it clear that they intend to do everything they can to destroy Israel and ultimately the United States, we need to do everything that's necessary again, including military response, to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. The sooner the President makes that clear, the better chance that we won't have to have a military response. But right now the Iranian administration, the Iranian leaders are simply not convinced that this President intends to hold them accountable and keep them from gaining nuclear weapons capability, and I think it's one of the most dangerous things that we face in the world for that reason.

Mr. Carter, I think we forget when we talk about the economy and jobs that the most important thing we can do for the economy and jobs is to make sure that this country is secure and that productivity is allowed unfettered; that it has a secure environment in which to flourish. If the government will get out of the way, this economy will flourish. It will go forward. But if we fail as a government to do what is our duty, which is national security, there's nothing that could damage our economy more.

I remind everyone that we lost $2 trillion in our economy when two airplanes hit two buildings. It's very easy to forget the cost of war. Someone said that war devours everything that peace gives. And we need to make sure that we defend this country and make sure that the people who are investing in this country and are trying to work in this country and be productive know that they can do so in a fully secure environment. It is the most important thing that we can do for our national economy.

And I would suggest to you that it's important for us to start asking this administration some key questions. The number one question is: Where do they put the national security of the United States on their priority list? Secondly: What are they willing to do to clarify this dangerous jihadist ideology in stark terms where everyone can understand what we're dealing with and that we're willing to do whatever is necessary to prevent terrorism in this country and protect the American people? And third: What is Mr. Obama willing to do? What is he willing to do to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons with which to threaten the peace of mankind?

With that, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take this moment to just thank God that Gabby Giffords has returned to this floor. You know, it so happens that just a few feet from here was the last time I had seen Gabby, when she left the floor prior to this tragic attack on her.

It just occurs to me that once in a while in this life we find an example where tragedy is transcended by the human spirit and triumph and the grace of God, and this is one of those days. I just congratulate her with everything in me that she has come back. She has the prayers of the entire delegation, and I know the entire Congress, as she goes forward to complete recovery.

We are all very, very grateful today. This is a wonderful celebration for every Member of this Congress. It is a celebration for just the cause of this Republic, because we believe that everyone has the right to have the freedom of speech and to peaceably assemble, and this is what she was doing when she was attacked. For her to come back this way as she has is a triumph of the first magnitude, and we are all so very, very proud of her, and welcome her back with all of our hearts.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have another subject tonight that I want to talk about, and that is the recent challenges that we have faced over the debt limit raising and the effort on the part of many of us to place a balanced budget into the bill that went across to the Senate that would have required a balanced budget to be in our Constitution, because, Mr. Speaker, some of us believe that it is the only way that we are going to finally, in this country, deal with the challenges of deficit spending and with the burgeoning debt that threatens to crush this country in a way that no military power has ever been able to do.

Mr. Speaker, some of us have talked about this difficult problem for a very long time, and it seems that over and over again history repeats itself, and we never really deal with it like we should.

But this time, Mr. Speaker, we have placed something before the American people that I think they are going to hang on to, and I believe that there is great hope in the coming months that we will continue to strive for this balanced budget amendment, and I hope that the people of America are paying attention because we cannot repeal the laws of mathematics. This challenge will damage this country in the most profound way if we don't deal with it while we can.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say this: That all financial budgets will eventually balance, that's a fact. No individual, no family, no business, and no government can indefinitely continue to spend more money than they take in without someone having to make up the difference, Mr. Speaker, and that includes the budget of the United States Government.

Neither Mr. Obama nor congressional Democrats can repeal this law of mathematics. The Federal budget of the United States Government will eventually balance, as all of them do, whether it's a person or a government or a business, when they continue to spend money that they don't have, someone, sooner or later, has to make up the difference. The question with our Federal budget is whether the White House and those of us in this body will balance this budget ourselves by wise policy or national bankruptcy and financial ruin will do it for us.

From the day Barack Obama has walked into the White House he has, with breathtaking arrogance, Mr. Speaker, absolutely ignored economic and financial reality. It took America the first 216 years of its existence to accumulate the debt that Barack Obama has accumulated in the short 2\1/2\-year span of his presidency.

During this short time in office he has increased our Federal debt by nearly $4 trillion, Mr. Speaker. And just to put that nearly $4 trillion in new debt in perspective, let me just put it this way. If all of a sudden a wave of responsibility swept through this Chamber and we stopped all deficit spending and began to pay installments of $1 million per day to pay down the nearly $4 trillion debt that Barack Obama has created in just 2\1/2\ years, it would take us more than 10,000 years to pay off just Mr. Obama's accumulated debt in 2\1/2\ years. It would take us more than 10,000 years, Mr. Speaker, to do that if we paid it off in a million dollars a day, and that's if we don't have to pay one dime in interest in the process.

But you see, Mr. Speaker, we are not paying Mr. Obama's debt down at $1 million per day; we are going deeper into debt, more than 4,000 times that much every day, and that's under Mr. Obama's own projected deficit and deficit projections. And then when speaking of the effort to reduce the deficit, the President has the hubris to tell conservative Republicans to take a balanced approach and to eat our peas.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if there's anything more catastrophically out of balance in our Federal budget it is the arrogance to competency ratio of this White House. We have watched as President Obama ran up a trillion-dollar deficit for the first time in history and then broke that record the very next year, and then say that we would have, according to his own projections, a trillion dollar-plus deficit for ``years to come.''

We have watched as the Obama administration promised that if we would just allow them to spend $800 million on their stimulus package, the economy would rebound and unemployment would never reach 8 percent. Well, of course, that didn't happen, and then we watched this administration bring us ObamaCare, or the health care takeover by government.

And, Mr. Speaker, let me just suggest to you that at the time of that debate there was a lot of discussion over what private employers would do to their own insurance plans in the face of this government takeover of health care. Some people thought well, 5 percent, maybe 10 percent of the health care plans in the private sector would be dropped by corporations, would be dropped by employers.

But, Mr. Speaker, that projection is a little bit further off than we thought. The polled people that have answered the question of whether or not they would drop their health care plans, being employers, they have said that as many as half of them would do that now. Mr. Speaker, the reason I mention that is because if that's true, the cost of doing that, the cost of absorbing that to the Federal Government will be another $2 trillion on top of the trillion dollars that was already in the bill. So ObamaCare itself could cost us $3 trillion and, Mr. Speaker, that's just in the next 10 years.

So I would just say to you, Mr. Speaker, this administration has really done for deficits and debt what Stonehenge did for rocks. There is no one that has pressed this deficit spending more than the Obama administration. Mr. Speaker, the people have awakened, and they are tired of Mr. Obama telling them that 2 plus 2 equals 13.

So as we now find ourselves raising this debt ceiling yet again, in the process, some of us as conservative Republicans wanted so badly to give the American people and the States of this Nation the historic opportunity to adopt a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution to put this country back on the track of fiscal sanity once again.

So we placed a balanced budget amendment requirement in two separate pieces of legislation and passed them through this body and sent them over to the Senate only to have Mr. Obama and Senate Democrats refuse to even allow them to come up for a vote, either one of them. They simply refused to vote on it.

In both instances, Mr. Speaker, President Obama's contributions to the process were threats to veto both plans sight unseen.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could just get this one question answered, if nothing else that they would answer, I just wish the administration would answer this one question: What is it, what is it that the President and Democrats find so radical about a balanced budget amendment?

This is something that 49 States have and every family in America has to have sooner or later, a simple balanced budget amendment that says we cannot go into debt in an infinite way that threatens not only our children's future--you know, we used to talk about how this threatened our children's future, Mr. Speaker, and I will tell you, being the father of two little twins that are going to have their third birthday before long, that has great pull in my soul, that I don't want to see this crushing debt placed on their shoulders.

But I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that now we are starting to face a challenge that is going to come in this generation and this time, and it may not be so far off. Greece has set an example for the world as to what can happen when people simply don't pay attention to their fiscal challenges.

But the failure of both, and the failure of cooperation and the failure of leadership from Democrats on this issue, has been baffling to me, Mr. Speaker. Unbelievably, it has been 822 days since Senate Democrats proposed, not passed, but merely even proposed a budget. An individual practicing such irresponsibility, living without a budget while paying for everything with borrowed money, would meet certain financial ruin. Why do we believe our Nation will fare any better under the same preposterous policy?

Now Mr. Obama and the Democrats have falsely said that the balanced budget amendment is a Republican plan to destroy Social Security and Medicare. What a false, terrible, despicable thing to say. The truth is the balanced budget amendment is the only honest chance of reforming and saving those programs and our country from bankruptcy and economic failure in the future, Mr. Speaker.

And throughout this process, Mr. Obama and the liberal media have sought to force tax increases upon the people and the job creators of this Nation by suggesting that Republicans were not willing to address the revenue side of this equation. That isn't true either, Mr. Speaker.

Just because Republicans are not willing to increase job-killing tax rates in this country doesn't mean we don't understand the revenue side of this equation. We just know that increasing the rate of taxes will decrease the productivity of this Nation and we will ultimately decrease the revenue that comes into this government.

It is the economic equivalent of putting dirt in ice cream. It is a disastrous recipe to embrace in the name of balance. But I hear it over and over again--balance, balance. There is nothing more balanced, Mr. Speaker, than a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution.

History and experience has demonstrated time and again that the best way to increase the amount of revenue coming in to this government is to get out of the way and let the people and the private sector increase the number of quality jobs for the American people. This has always resulted in the increased productivity and the broadening of the tax base in this amazing Nation.

Mr. Speaker, we don't need higher taxes, we need more jobs and more taxpayers. Mr. Obama and the Democrats have constantly said that we need to take, again, this ``balanced'' approach, which is a code for increased taxes. But, Mr. Speaker, again, the truly balanced approach to this problem is a balanced budget to the Constitution, and by passing a balanced budget amendment we can restore hope and confidence in capital markets inside the United States and all over the world because they will see that in the long run America is going to make it.

It may take the States 6 or 7 years to fully ratify this Constitutional amendment to balance the budget. But we owe it to the States and to the people to give them this chance to save their Nation. In the meantime, we can work here to expand the economy and balance this budget so when the amendment finally is ratified, we will all be ready to go forward as a nation to embrace greater days than we have ever seen. And we have a rare opportunity, Mr. Speaker, that may never come again of doing something truly historic that will save this Nation and its people from economic ruin.

This battle is not over. The American people are beginning to realize that they are already paying a very high price for electing Barack Obama to the presidency. If they make the profound error of reelecting him in the next election, our families and all Americans will face an economic, a constitutional and a national security crisis that will dwarf the challenges that we face in these moments. If Democrats and the President are not willing to give the people this chance by helping Republicans pass a balanced budget amendment in the Congress, the resulting consequences will be theirs alone, Mr. Speaker, and I believe the people will hold them accountable for whatever financial disaster may follow.

Now long ago, Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson said, ``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; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing.''

He said that right after the Constitution itself had been finished. He just wanted one more amendment. And, unfortunately, as you know, he turned out to be right. But his contemporaries failed to listen to him about the balanced budget amendment.

I will just say to you, Mr. Speaker, it is not too late for those of us in these moments to listen to his words. I believe the American people are listening today, and I believe that they call upon their leaders now to do something truly historic and pass a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution in the days ahead. And God help us to do it, Mr. Speaker.

Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that I know that this has been a challenging week, and I believe our leadership on the Republican side of this House has done everything possible to try to work with the President and to work with the majority leader of the U.S. Senate. And they have had an extremely significant challenge. We sent twice to the other body bills that would have raised the debt limit but in the process also have required a balanced budget amendment to be inserted into the Constitution, or at least sent to the people so that they could decide. But this is the one thing that they took from us in the process. And, Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that we had a golden opportunity to truly change the way that America goes forward, and we failed that opportunity. But I would also say that I think there is still hope to do it in the next few months. Part of the equation that we have under this legislation is to require a balanced budget amendment vote in both this Chamber, in the House of Representatives, and in the U.S. Senate. And I hope so much that we do that while we can and that the people of this country will let their Representatives and Senators know that they are tired of this deficit spending and tired of this fiscal irresponsibility and saying, in our lifetime, we will have a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and we will make sure that our children can walk in the light of freedom and economic hope as we have. I hope that happens, Mr. Speaker.

With that, I would yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I thank the gentleman so much. Mr. Price is the chairman of our Policy Committee, and no one has written more cogently and with more commitment on the balanced budget amendment than this man. I am so grateful that he is here and has been such a voice on this.

I ask the gentleman, do you think the American people know that we passed two pieces of legislation over to the Senate with requirements for a balanced budget amendment, and the first thing they did, the Democrat leader there, just took those out or simply refused to vote on them? Do you think they know that?

I thank the gentleman so much.

Let me yield to the gentleman from South Carolina. I am glad that you came to the floor, sir.

I thank the Speaker, and I understand that the gentleman from Illinois would like me to yield to him for a question.

I thank the gentleman, and I'll take a shot at that.

First of all, as the gentleman knows, there are many different kinds of balanced budget amendments that have been proposed. One of the commonalities of most of those is that they require that our projected spending meet our projected revenues, what we believe is going to be our receipts for the coming year. Now, it is true, as in all areas of the Constitution, that the Federal courts have exhibited great arrogance in coming into the area of legislation and trying to legislate from the bench by dealing with these issues under the pretense of considering the constitutionality of these issues. The good news with a balanced budget amendment is that there would be obvious language there that the courts would have before them that simply says that the Congress is required by the Constitution to balance our budget so that we don't deficit-spend.

It is true that we are required in this body to have equal protection, for instance. We can't say that this one group deserves one protection and that this one group doesn't. Every once in a while, the Supreme Court injects themselves into that debate like they did in Roe vs. Wade, let's say. They simply said, when it comes to protecting the unborn, that they weren't persons under the Constitution and that we not only didn't have to protect them but that we couldn't protect them. That was arrogance beyond words. This is every time across the history of humanity. When the German High Tribunal injected itself even into the tragedy of the German system, they said that the German was ``untermenschen,'' subhuman, and they took away their personhood; and the tragedy that followed is still one of the darkest stains that I know of on the human soul.

So, yes, it is possible that the courts could try to intervene in this process and try to distort it, but ultimately, the ``balanced budget amendment'' concept is very simple. It would say, like Thomas Jefferson said, that the Federal Government simply would take from them the power of borrowing.

Now, there was a balanced budget amendment that came before this floor about 15 years ago, and it received over 300 votes on the floor, many of them Democrat votes. I don't know how the gentleman from Illinois voted on that. That's not a question. I don't know. Yet that particular balanced budget amendment simply said that you could not deficit-spend without a super majority of votes that declared that there was either an emergency in dealing with our national security or that there was an act of war on the table to where we were having to do things to make sure that we protected the national security of this country, which is priority one.

I'll let the gentleman ask me one more question, and then I'm going to yield to these other folks. I would just say this: Oftentimes, my friends on the Democrat side of the aisle say that a balanced budget amendment will require us to cut Medicare and cut Social Security and all of these things, and that presupposes that a balanced budget amendment will bring in less revenue to this government because of its constraints. First of all, when we deficit-spend, we're really just throwing the log up the trail. We're really not doing anyone any good in the long run because these programs become unsustainable over time.

Here's the thing that I wish I could express and wish that my Democrat friends would do their own research on and ascertain whether they think it's true empirically in history, which is: When we have a balanced budget amendment, when people believe that they can project forward and know that this government is going to be secure, when they believe that we're not going to deficit-spend and take a lot of the capital out of the private markets and that we're not going to put burdens on the interest rates, one thing happens very clearly--it drags more people off the sidelines; it drags more entrepreneurs into the system; it causes

more people to put their capital at risk; it causes more people to put their lives and endeavors into an enterprise that results in productivity.

The fundamentals of all economy is productivity, productivity, productivity, productivity. When we produce as a Nation, we raise the number of taxpayers, not the rate of taxes. We raise the number of taxpayers, and money from all corners comes into the coffers. That has happened many times. Even when we decrease taxes, that happens.

So I am convinced that a balanced budget amendment is the surest way, not only to have the additional moneys necessary to make sure that we have all of the constitutional mandated and allowed activities of this Federal Government to do, including that it gives us more money for things like Medicare and that it gives us more money for things like Social Security, but to also put us on a fiscal path to security so that those programs won't eventually come into question and even bankruptcy.

With that, I'd let the gentleman ask one more question.

I thank the gentleman.

There are always these times when Democrats and Republicans can find common ground, and I think this is one of those moments when I take the gentleman's point and believe that he has a very good point.

The truth is, as of late, in the last several decades, the courts have politicized, and they have brought into sort of the legalization process a lot of the activities that belong in this Chamber. I am convinced that, yes, there is every possibility that they may try to do that with a balanced budget amendment of the Constitution or with any other element of the Constitution because that's where things are headed.

The answer to that is not to say, well then, we're just going to give up the Constitution to the judges. The answer is for us to fight back and say that they are not going to politicize our Constitution, that they are there to apply the Constitution as written, not to have a Constitutional Convention every time they sit down to a case where they rewrite the Constitution like they did with Roe vs. Wade, like they did with the Kelo case. The judges simply should interpret the law as written and not try to do our job as legislators.

It is a serious problem, I would say to the gentleman, that concerns me greatly, but I will say this: We are seeing judges do these things anyway in States. Apart from a balanced budget amendment, they're saying, You're not equally applying your appropriations in a particular area, and we hereby order you to appropriate funds to this or that particular issue or cause or department. So I say to the gentleman that there is nothing that frightens me more than turning this entire Constitution, this entire Republic, over to an unelected judicial oligarchy. It's the most dangerous thing that we face because it abrogates the Constitution. I would say this President has put people in the courts who have no fealty or no respect for the Constitution whatsoever.

I just had a case that I've been fighting for 14 years, and it went before the courts. It should have been a 9-0 case, but it was 5-4 because these four justices were willing to say that every dollar in your pocket before you filled out a tax return was public money. Now, there was nothing constitutionally accurate about that, but they were willing to do it.

So the gentleman is correct in being afraid of judicial activism and of the judiciary injecting itself into the Constitution, but they've done that with all amendments. At least with a constitutionally balanced budget amendment, we'll have the words clearly that we have at least the ability to fight back and to say to the judges that they have no right to abrogate these words.

I hope that that makes a difference.

With that, I thank the gentleman for his questions, and I would yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma such time as he may consume.

And I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say, in listening to the gentleman from Oklahoma's comments, that he is one great encouragement to many of us because he is living proof that the cavalry has arrived, and he is an example of why this debate has changed. I am very grateful for his presence in the United States Congress, and I hope he is here a very long time.

With that, I would seek to yield to the gentleman from Iowa for such time as he might consume, and I might ask the Speaker what the time remaining is at this point.

So I'm hoping I can yield to the gentleman 8 minutes, or something along those lines.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa. He happens to be one of my most beloved friends in this institution, and he is a true statesman. Mr. Speaker, sometimes I think it's important for us to examine that word ``statesman.'' It's often said that a politician looks to the next election whereas a statesman looks to the next generation. I so believe that that's important in this place.

We need to realize that, as the older men around here, as it were, that we need to plant shade trees under whose shade we will never sit ourselves. We need to do those things for the next generations that will really make the difference.

I want to, if I could, relate the timeless words of one of our Founding Fathers Samuel Adams. He said, ``Let us contemplate our forefathers and our posterity, and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former for the sake of the latter. The necessity of these times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude and perseverance.''

I think so much that those words are true, Mr. Speaker, because I truly believe that right now we are about planting trees under whose shade we will never sit ourselves.

But I truly believe that if we work hard in these next few months to pass this balanced budget amendment, that we will do great things for this country and for its people because oftentimes I find people see the balanced budget amendment as a way to constrain our ability to meet the needs of government.

Well, the fact is, Mr. Speaker, a balanced budget amendment will do several things. First of all, it will not only help government meet certain needs, it will help a lot of people no longer need government because it will expand this economy, it will help people gain jobs, it will help people become taxpayers, and as I said in my earlier comments, we don't need more tax increases, we need more taxpayers, and nothing will help this government in terms of the revenue it needs more than that.

But ultimately, a balanced budget amendment will also cause a debate in this country as to what is government's role and what is the private sector's role because oftentimes the difference between this country and many other countries is that our Constitution changed down government, and our Constitution tries to magnify the individual. And, Mr. Speaker, I just think sometimes we forget what it's all about.

I know there is a lot of sincere people on both sides of the issue. But I would just say tonight that we have a chance to move forward from this debate and realize that our eyes are open now, that we see the problem. And sometimes there is a moment in the life of every problem, Mr. Speaker, when it is big enough to be seen and still small enough to be solved. And I'm afraid that that window is closing upon all of us right now and that we have an opportunity to sow the seeds of ultimate success by putting a balanced budget amendment in our Constitution by putting it out to the States.

We can't pass a balanced budget amendment ourselves. What we can do is we can put it out to the States and say you decide. Let the people of this country decide whether we need a balanced budget amendment or not. If we will do our part, they will do theirs.

You know Fred Bastiat said many, many years ago, government is that great fiction through which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else. And it sounds real good, you know, this idea of deficit spending, this idea of socialized government sounds real good. But the truth is that while maybe free enterprise and market-driven freedom is sometimes the unequal distribution of wealth, socialism has proven time and time again across the centuries to be the equal distribution of poverty.

Nothing has dragged more poor people out of poverty for longer periods of time than freedom and free enterprise, and the balanced budget amendment will reinvigorate that in this country, and it's time that we had it, and by the grace of God I hope that we proceed.

I join with my friends on both sides of the aisle to say it's time to put this country back on track to the greatness that the Founding Fathers dreamed of so long ago and to understand on our parts that if we do what we can, that America's best days are still ahead.

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

I certainly thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Obama and the Democrats have constantly and consistently said we need to take a balanced approach to the debt crisis facing America, but they steadfastly refuse to even consider the one truly balanced approach to this program, that being a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution.

This effort today will be the second time that the House of Representatives will have passed legislation requiring a balanced budget amendment, which would actually create a permanent solution to this crisis and make sure that economic freedom can be available for Americans today and for future generations.

Yet Mr. Reid says he will kill this bill as soon as it comes to the Senate, or at least strip out the balanced budget amendment that's in it.

Madam Speaker, if we can get Mr. Reid here and the President himself, and I guess we would have to put out an APB on the President because we can't find him. He is AWOL in this debate. But if we could, I would ask him two questions: First, what is your plan to deal with this issue? Secondly, what on earth is so radical about having a balanced budget amendment to create a permanent solution to this problem?

Now, I doubt we would get an answer, Madam Speaker. So today, we will have to do as we have done before, and we will try to proceed without them and try to do something truly historic that will save this Nation and its people from economic ruin.

Madam Speaker, long ago, right after the Constitution was finished, Thomas Jefferson said: ``I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to the 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 the Federal Government the power of borrowing.''

Madam Speaker, Thomas Jefferson was right. And how I wish his contemporaries had listened to him about the balanced budget amendment, but they didn't. Now we have a crisis of $14 trillion facing us as a result of not having this amendment, and it could crush us in a way that no military power has ever done. And in this moment in history in America, we may get a second chance. I hope my colleagues will join us in this historic effort.

I certainly thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, all financial budgets will eventually balance. No individual, no family, no business, and no government can indefinitely continue to spend more money than they take in without someone having to make up the difference. Mr. Speaker, that includes the Federal budget of the United States.

Neither Mr. Obama nor congressional Democrats can repeal the laws of mathematics. The Federal budget of the United States Government will eventually balance. The question is whether the White House and those of us in this body will balance this budget ourselves by wise policy or whether national bankruptcy and financial ruin will do it for us.

From the day Barack Obama walked into the White House, his breathtakingly arrogant policies have absolutely ignored economic and financial reality. It took America the first 216 years of its existence to accumulate the debt that Barack Obama has accumulated in the short 2\1/2\-year span of his Presidency. He rammed a nearly $1 trillion government takeover of health care down the throats of the American people, and he spent another nearly $1 trillion on a failed government- based boondoggle for economic stimulus. During his short time in office, he has increased our Federal debt by nearly $4 trillion in new debt, and now he says we will have $1 trillion-plus deficits ``for years to come.''

Then, when speaking of the effort to reduce the deficit, the President has the hubris to tell conservative Republicans to take a balanced approach and to eat our peas. To that, I would just say to the President: Please pull up a chair, sir. We are ready to eat our peas, and we need help.

This Cut, Cap, and Balance bill is actually a solution to America's problem. It does not cut Social Security. It does not cut Medicare. It does not cut compensation to our men and women in uniform by one dime; but the balanced budget amendment it proposes does give us an honest chance of reforming and saving those programs and our country from bankruptcy in the future.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the Democrat Congress of last year that gave a standing ovation to a $2 trillion increase in our debt limit. This is the Congress that was sent here by the American people to turn things around--and the American people are awake, Mr. Speaker. They are watching us, and they are tired of Democrats telling them that 2+2=13. If Democrats and the President are not willing to give the American people this chance by helping Republicans pass a balanced budget amendment in this Congress, the resulting consequences will be theirs alone, and I believe the people will hold them accountable.

By passing this Cut, Cap, and Balance bill along with the balanced budget amendment, we can restore confidence in the American economy in markets here and across the world. We can see more revenue come into these coffers than has ever happened in the history of the Nation, and we can set this country on a new road to the brightest days it has ever seen. It is something that is truly an opportunity beyond our dreams. This is the time to do it, and by the grace of God, that's exactly what we intend to do.

Madam Speaker, we are going to discuss tonight the cut, cap, and balance bill that will come before this body tomorrow morning. I just want to express some thoughts about how desperately important I believe this bill is for America. I have seen in the media oftentimes the bill diminished. Madam Speaker, I believe this is an opportunity that is very unusual for those of us in this body to have, where we can put this Nation on a track to fiscal sanity and where we can truly do that thing that we were sent here to do.

Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying that all financial budgets will eventually balance. No individual, no family, no business, and no government can indefinitely continue to spend more money than they take in without someone having to make up the difference. That includes the budget of the United States Federal Government. Neither Mr. Obama nor congressional Democrats can repeal the laws of mathematics.

The Federal budget of the United States Government will eventually balance, Madam Speaker. The question is whether the House of Representatives, the United States Senate, and the White House will work together to balance this budget ourselves by wise policy, or national bankruptcy and financial ruin will do it for us.

From the day Barack Obama walked into the White House, he has, with breathtaking arrogance, absolutely ignored economic and financial reality. It took America the first 216 years of its existence to accumulate the debt that Barack Obama has accumulated in the short 2\1/ 2\-year span of his Presidency. During his short time in office, Madam Speaker, he has increased our Federal debt by nearly $4 trillion.

Just to put that nearly $4 trillion in new debt in perspective, let me put it this way: if all of a sudden a wave of responsibility swept through this Chamber and we stopped all deficit spending and began to pay installments of $1 million every day to pay down the nearly $4 trillion debt that Barack Obama has created in just 2\1/2\ years, it would take us more than 10,000 years to pay it off. And that's if we didn't have to pay one dime in interest, Madam Speaker.

But, you see, we are not paying off Mr. Obama's debt by $1 million per day. We are going deeper into debt, more than 4,000 times that $1 million a day every day under Mr. Obama's own submitted budget and deficit projection. Let me say that again: if we paid down the debt $1 million a day, the debt that Mr. Obama has accumulated in his 2\1/2\ year Presidency, it would take us 10,000 years to do it. But we are not doing that. We are going deeper into debt, 4,000 times that much, every day, almost $4 billion per day.

And then when speaking of the effort to reduce the deficit, the President has the hubris to tell conservative Republicans to take a balanced approach and to eat our peas. Madam Speaker, if there is anything more catastrophically out of balance than our Federal budget, it is the arrogance to competency ratio of this White House. We have already tried Mr. Obama's way. We have for far too long been testing Democrat economics 101; the theory, as Vice President Biden put it, we have to spend money to keep from going bankrupt.

Madam Speaker, when it comes to balancing our budget, Mr. Obama and the liberal media have suggested that Republicans are unwilling to address the revenue side of the equation, but that isn't true either. Just because Republicans are not willing to increase job-killing tax rates on this country doesn't mean that we don't understand the revenue side of the equation.

History and experience have demonstrated time and again that the best way to increase the amount of revenue coming into this government is to get out of the way and allow the private sector to increase the quality and number of jobs for the American people. This has historically resulted in the increased productivity and the broadening of the tax base in this amazing Nation.

And yet the President is willing to ignore that history and the reality of the amazing American economic engine and kill the goose that lays the golden eggs by raising taxes. Madam Speaker, that is like saying putting additional weight on the back of a race horse will help him win more races.

You will recall that the Democrats, when they had control of Congress, raised the debt limit six times. I so clearly remember the surreal spectacle at the time of then-majority leader of the House, Steny Hoyer, leading the entire Democrat caucus in a rousing standing ovation after the debt limit was raised by $2 trillion in 2010. We have watched as President Obama ran up a trillion-dollar deficit for the first time in history and then break that record the very next year, and then say that we would have $1 trillion-plus deficits ``for years to come.''

We have watched as Mr. Obama and the administration promised that if we just allowed them to spend another $800 billion on their stimulus package that the economy would rebound and unemployment would never go beyond 8 percent. Now, Madam Speaker, the American people have awakened, and they are tired of Democrats telling them that 2 plus 2 equals 13.

So as we now find ourselves facing the prospect of raising the debt ceiling yet again, Republicans have said the only way we are going to consent to raising the debt ceiling is if we cut spending by the same amount we increase the debt ceiling and then if we give the people and the States of this Nation the historic opportunity to adopt a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution to put this country back on the track of fiscal sanity once again, Madam Speaker.

Now, I know that Mr. Obama and the Democrats have falsely said that the balanced budget amendment is just a Republican plan to destroy Social Security and Medicare. But the truth is that the bill we will be voting on tomorrow does not cut Social Security, it does not cut Medicare, and it does not cut the compensation to our men and women in uniform by one dime. But the balanced budget amendment does

give us an honest chance of reforming and saving those programs and our country from bankruptcy in the future.

Mr. Obama and the Democrats have constantly said that we need to take a ``balanced approach'' and include increased taxes in the equation. But I have already said, Madam Speaker, increasing the rate of taxes will decrease the productivity of this Nation and will ultimately decrease the revenue that comes into this government. It is the economic equivalent of mixing dirt and ice cream. It is a poor recipe to embrace in the name of balance.

Madam Speaker, the truly balanced approach to this problem is a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. By passing this cut, cap, and balance bill, along with the balanced budget amendment, we have a rare opportunity, and it is one that may never come again, Madam Speaker, of doing something truly historic that will save this Nation and its people from economic ruin.

Now, if the President and the Democrats will help us do this, together we can restore hope and confidence in capital markets inside the United States and really all over the world because those markets will see in the long run that America is going to make it.

It may take 6 or 7 years to fully ratify this constitutional amendment once it is sent to the States. But we owe it to the States and to the people to give them this chance to save their Nation. In the meantime, we can work hard here to expand this economy and to balance this budget that we work with here every year so that when the amendment is ratified, we will be ready to go forward together as a Nation to embrace the greatest days we have ever seen.

However, Madam Speaker, if the Democrats and the President are not willing to give America and the American people this chance by helping Republicans pass a balanced budget amendment in this Congress, the resulting consequences will be theirs alone, and I believe the people will hold them accountable for whatever financial disaster may follow.

Madam Speaker, long ago Thomas Jefferson said: 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 the Federal Government the power of borrowing.

Madam Speaker, it turns out Thomas Jefferson was right the vast majority of the time, and we have been those who have seen the best of some of the principles that he espoused so long ago. How I wish his contemporaries had listened to him about the balanced budget amendment. But in this moment in history, America may get a second chance, Madam Speaker. But we may not get it again.

I don't often quote Shakespeare, but long ago he wrote in a play this quote that I think applies to us today. He said:

``There is a tide in the affairs of men.

Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;

Omitted, all the voyage of their life

Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

On such a full sea are we now afloat,

And we must take the current when it serves,

Or lose our ventures.''

In this time of crisis, we are also standing in a place where the tide is high and the opportunity is real for us to do something that will truly turn things around for this Nation.

Madam Speaker, this is not the Democrat Congress of last year that gave a standing ovation to a $2 trillion increase in our debt limit. This is the Congress that was sent here by the American people to turn things around. And that starts by drawing the line on spending and saying thus far and no further and passing a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. By the grace of God, Madam Speaker, that's exactly what we're going to do.

With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Indiana for such time as he may consume.

I would now yield to the gentleman from Georgia for such time as he may consume.

I thank the distinguished gentleman.

I now recognize the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

I thank the gentleman from California for his wise and well-placed words.

My friends on the left would have us believe that if we have a balanced budget in this country that somehow it will crush all of the critical programs for the most vulnerable in our society. Madam Speaker, that just simply is not true.

There is very little that I know of that would cause this government to flourish economically than for the Nation, itself, to flourish economically. Oftentimes, we forget that the confidence in the system has a great deal to do with the success of the system. We find that a lot of us on the right talk about the competitive free market, and we do believe in that; but I will tell you there is something that we believe in even more, and that is an element called ``trust.''

Of those who are the producers of our society, of those who are the job makers of our society, of those who are the captains of industry and productivity, all the way down to the person who makes minimum wage, if they believe that they can trust the environment they're in and if they do what they believe is right--that their contracts will be honored, that their wages will be paid, that government will make sure that they're treated justly and fairly--then they will continue to be productive, and they will continue to do everything that they can collectively to make this country the ongoing greatest Nation in the history of the world.

Madam Speaker, when that trust is broken--when government sometimes just sets aside its own rules and prints money and deficit spends and completely ignores the important things that it's supposed to do to keep trust with the people that it represents--then oftentimes those who are the producers, those who are the entrepreneurs, those who are the ones who try to make a difference in this world become discouraged, and they step back because they can't trust their government.

I would suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that that is one of the big challenges that we face today.

People have watched over the last many decades this government continue to spend out of control. They've watched us take advantage of inflation. They've watched the government of this Nation and its leaders use deficit spending to a degree that diminishes their way of life, and they've watched us do all the bailouts and all those kinds of things. I will just tell you, Madam Speaker, that they're getting tired, but the good news is this:

The good news is that people have finally awakened.

I would say to you tonight, Madam Speaker, that nothing encourages me more than knowing that people are finally starting to watch this country. They know that a balanced budget amendment will do something that very few other economic policies have ever done: that it will restore the confidence and trust in this government, that we will begin to have to live within our means, that if we want greater revenue to come through these doors that we will do everything that we can to see business flourish, and that we will put aside this notion, as Fred Bastiat said, of government being that great fiction through which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else.

We will understand that the secret to the success of this Nation economically is productivity. Then we will have the kind of tax base that will not only support this government but that will allow us to do the things that are important for the most helpless in our society.

I want to yield again to the gentleman from California.

I thank the gentleman from California.

I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

I thank the distinguished gentleman.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the remainder of the time.

With that, I would yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

I thank the gentleman from Indiana.

Oftentimes, Madam Speaker, I have friends that come up to me on the street and they say, Trent, why aren't you talking more about this? Why aren't you explaining these things in the media better? Why aren't you going to the floor and telling us about these critical issues? So, oftentimes we do and the media just ignores it or somehow the people don't have the advantage of hearing what we say.

And I hope that doesn't happen to this bill, Madam Speaker, because I truly believe if the American people could just read the Cut, Cap, and Balance legislation that they would understand how profoundly reasonable it really is. All it really says is that we are going to cut our budget at least as much as we raise the debt ceiling, and that we're going to put some steps in place to begin to rein in the spending of this government in a real way; and that as we go forward, we will begin to index the spending of this Nation with a certain percentage of the gross domestic product, or the amount of productivity of our Nation.

Madam Speaker, that's so imminently reasonable because that creates a great deal of incentive on the part of government, then, to see all people in our society successful, to see everyone have gain and to be able to accumulate wealth in every way that they can, from the janitor to the Senator.

And then, finally, this legislation says that we need a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution.

Madam Speaker, I have the privilege of being the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution in this place. I will just suggest to you that the balanced budget amendment seems

so intuitive to me because, as I said earlier, all budgets have to balance at some point.

You know, I have two little babies, Joshie and Gracie, and they have piggy banks. They know that if they take more out of it than they put in it, then it goes empty. They understand that. I don't know why something so fundamental and basic escapes the erudite minds that pervade government. But it seems that we think that somehow because we have Ph.D.s and that because we are able to perpetrate monotonic polysyllabic obfuscation, semantic gymnastics, and verbal circumlocution that people won't know what we're talking about and that somehow we can get away with anything that we want to. And I just think that's so tragic because a reality is still in place that says that if we live outside our means, that pretty soon the entire system begins to collapse. That's where we are, Madam Speaker. We are seeing people losing confidence in their government. And I'm very concerned about that because I believe that it is vital that people have confidence.

Somebody said to me, they said, you know, if all of the gold in Fort Knox were stolen tonight and none of us knew about it, that the gold market wouldn't change much tomorrow morning in The Wall Street Journal. But if someone put out a press release, say, from Fort Knox that all of the gold had been stolen in Fort Knox but that that wasn't really true, that all of the gold was still there but somehow the public believed that it had been stolen, that gold markets across the planet the next day would crash because people's perception, their confidence in the system is vital to the system.

Right now, people are losing confidence in our system, and I think there are very few things that threaten us more. We talk about a default. Well, the default is not going to happen on August 2 unless the President chooses to arbitrarily force that to happen. But I am concerned that the markets may begin to say, Maybe the Congress of the United States just doesn't have the courage to do the right thing. Maybe somehow they're going to let politics intervene to the extent that they're actually going to step back and not do what's necessary to stabilize the economic foundation of this Nation. And that is so tragic because it doesn't have to be that way.

This Cut, Cap, and Balance bill can accomplish everything that's reasonable. It can say, okay, we recognize the challenges that we face in this country today. We recognize that we've overspent. We recognize that our country is at a low economically. We recognize that we're not working on full employment. We recognize that the markets don't know whether to jump or go blind. They don't know what this President is going to do next. And if we put this Cut, Cap, and Balance bill in place, all of a sudden, the markets of the world, the person on the street, they're going to realize, hey, maybe there is hope after all. Maybe America is going to go forward and do what she was destined to do from the born of time and continue to be that great city on a hill that Ronald Reagan spoke of. I believe that it can be that way.

But I am afraid that somehow the people won't understand what's in this bill. I will just suggest to you, in all due deference and respect to the President of the United States, his plan is incumbent upon the people not understanding what it is, and the Republican plan is incumbent upon the people understanding what is really in the bill. And I so hope that the people are able to truly get the information that they need to understand what this bill is all about, rather than letting the left-wing media distort it to the extent that they don't know.

I also hope for something else, Madam Speaker. I am hoping that tomorrow when we vote that we will recognize something else as people in this place: that all too soon we will step from these Chambers one by one and that our time here will be passed, and only those things that we did that truly honored our God and our country and our fellow human beings and the great gift that we've been given in America will really matter at that point. I hope we will realize that we won't have too many votes like this in our career that can make a difference for future generations.

It's been said that the politician looks to the next election; whereas, the statesman looks to the next generation, and that great societies finally come when old men plant trees under whose shade they will never sit. I hope tomorrow that we will embrace this thing called statesmanship and look to the next generation and, quite frankly, Madam Speaker, to look to the next few days and weeks, because what we do is going to send a message to the markets the world over.

If you are an investor and you saw a company that continued to deficit spend and continued to get in debt beyond its means and continued to carelessly spend, would you invest in that company? I think that's what our country has to ask ourselves.

I truly believe that we're going to have a chance tomorrow that may be very unique in our careers, and it's possible that a lot of people are going to succumb to the need to be popular among certain special interest groups. But I will just suggest to them, Madam Speaker, that popularity is history's pocket change. It's courage that is the true currency of history, and we have a chance to be courageous tomorrow. We have a chance to do what's right, to stabilize this country today and tomorrow. We have a chance to make sure that our future generations walk in the light of freedom. I have a chance, as a father, to do what I believe is truly right for my children and their contemporaries so that they might grow up and walk in the light of freedom, as I have.

If we do this, I believe the people will applaud us in the long run. There may be certain exceptions in the short term. But in the long run they will look back and say that those people who stood up and did what was right that day when they voted on cut, cap, and balance and voted for the balanced budget amendment, they'll look back and see that as a historic turning point in this country. And I want so much to see that happen.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I would just say to you again that all budgets do balance, and the equation before us today is, are we going to balance the budget, or is reality going to balance it in a horrifying way for us?

For the sake of my children, for the sake of future generations, and for the sake of all that we love and hold dear in this country, and for the sake of making sure that we are good stewards of the greatest Nation God has ever given to this planet, I hope we do the right thing tomorrow.

I yield the remainder of the time to the gentleman from Indiana.

Madam Speaker, let me just close with these thoughts. There are a lot of people that have sacrificed profoundly for this Nation. There are people lying out in Arlington National Cemetery tonight, and I wonder what their perspective would be if they could come back among us for just a few moments?

While none of us knows that, Madam Speaker, I would suggest to you that they didn't die so that we could spend our country into bankruptcy, so that we could weaken our Nation on all fronts simply because we weren't fiscally responsible. And they didn't die so that we could put ourselves so deeply in debt that we spent tens of thousands for each little child born today so that they would have to carry that the rest of their lives.

They wanted, as the Founding Fathers talked about, to see every person, not only in America but, ultimately, in the world, to be able to be born and to lay hold on the miracle of life and to be free and to pursue their dreams. That's what they wanted. Sometimes I am so afraid that we have gotten away from that vision to the extent that we've grown sort of callous and cynical.

I hope that we can revisit those ideals tomorrow, and that we can force ourselves to remember that all of history and all of the future is watching us, and that what we do here tomorrow could mean the difference for America for decades and generations to come.

I believe if we do the right thing, that the loneliest moments in an old age home will be livable because we'll look back and say, you know, that's what we did. We did the right thing. And I hope we do that for the sake of my children, for the sake of America's children, and for the sake, somehow, of the children throughout the world that can be still touched by the message of this, the greatest Republic in the history of humanity.

Madam Speaker, if we will protect our constitutional foundations, if we will protect our economic base, if we will protect those things that make us who we are, then I believe that this government will have all of the revenue that it needs. I believe we will continue and go forward to be more productive than we have ever been, and I believe that America still has great things in the world to do. I hope we make sure that that occurs.

With that, with great respect, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Chair, all of us are grateful to the men and women who put themselves in harm's way between the malevolent and the innocents for the sake of this country. We need to remind ourselves that they don't fight because they hate the enemy or hate what's in front of them. They fight because they love what's behind them. They love us, they love their country, they love the cause of freedom, and they love their families. They love their families more than anything, Madam Chair; and they want to make sure that their children have the very best future that they can give them.

Madam Chair, this amendment that I am so thankful to Mr. Hunter for bringing forth would allow parents an extra option for their children, especially when their special needs children, in the midst of all the travel that the armed services people have to make, they need this option, Madam Chair; and I just think it's unbelievable that we wouldn't support them. Because, fundamentally, one of two people will choose the educational values, the educational substance of our children's future. It will be one of two. It will either be a person who doesn't know their name, or a person called a parent who would die for them in a moment.

I would submit, Madam Chair, that that decision is best left to the parents. Notwithstanding the opposition from the teachers unions, the parents are the best ones to be able to choose the school that their children go to. Nothing will shape the future of America more than the values and the academics that are inculcated in the hearts and minds of our children, and that should belong to parents, especially those who are fighting and dying for this country and they have a special needs child. We should give this to them.

I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chair, I would just seek to put this in some kind of perspective.

Ever since mankind took up arms against his fellow human beings, there has always been an offensive weapon met with some type of defensive weapon. The spear brought the shield. The artillery brought armed battle tanks. And now we face the world's most dangerous weapons in the history of mankind in the form of intercontinental ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads that in a blinding flash could kill hundreds of thousands of people in a city. Or over our Nation's continent, an Exo-atmospheric blast could perhaps over time, through destroying our electric infrastructure, kill tens of millions of people. And the only system that we have to defend ourselves against that type of weapon is our Ground Based Midcourse Defense System. And this amendment seeks to cut that another $100 million on top of the cuts that the administration has constantly done throughout its tenure.

Madam Chair, I would just suggest to you that that is the height of irresponsibility. The fact is when two airplanes hit two buildings, it cost this economy $2 trillion. This is not the way to have priorities for a budget. Our primary duty in this body is to make sure that we protect the lives and the constitutional rights of Americans, and we must protect our ability to stop intercontinental nuclear-armed missiles. This is the only system that we have to do it.

Vote down this amendment.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, it is said that a government is what it spends. This bill is really about whether the role of America's government is to fund a practice that takes the lives of over 1 million unborn American babies every year, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans, even some of those who consider themselves pro-choice, strongly object to their taxpayer dollars being used to pay for abortions.

In 1973, Madam Speaker, the United States Supreme Court said the unborn child was not a person under the Constitution and we have since witnessed the tragic deaths of over 50 million innocent little baby boys and girls who died without the protection we in this Chamber should have given them. Some of this was carried out with taxpayer dollars before the Hyde amendment and other such laws were in place, and taxpayer funding of abortion could recommence in the future under ObamaCare.

So before we vote on this bill, it is important for Members to ask themselves the real question: Does abortion take the life of a child? If it does not, then this is simply a budgetary issue. But if abortion really does kill a little baby, then those of us sitting here in these chambers of freedom are presiding over the greatest human genocide in the history of humanity, and some of it may be financed in the future, Madam Speaker, with taxpayer dollars over which we will have had direct control.

Madam Speaker, our Founding Fathers believed there were certain self- evident truths that were worth holding on to. The greatest of those truths in their minds was the transcendent meaning of this gift of God called human life. Our Constitution says no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Thomas Jefferson said that ``The care of human life and its happiness and not its destruction is the chief and only object of good government.''

Madam Speaker, protecting the lives and constitutional rights of our fellow Americans is why we are all here, and forcing taxpayers to pay for the indiscriminate killing of helpless little baby Americans is not good government and it should be ended once and for all.

Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation, and I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to recommit. The amendment supposes that the bill does something that it doesn't do. Nothing in this bill allows the IRS any greater access to health information than they have ever had. HIPAA is still in place. This is simply an amendment looking for a problem that isn't there.

Madam Speaker, well over a dozen weakening amendments to this bill were offered at the Judiciary Committee and the committee carefully considered and, frankly, dismissed most of those amendments. Likewise, opponents had a second opportunity to challenge the bill in the Ways and Means Committee, and the product is the bill before us.

I have heard so much incorrect information about the bill, Madam Speaker. I would like to say to you that when the gentlelady speaks of the most vulnerable among us, I would simply say that before the sun sets today in America, 4,000 unborn children will die of abortion on demand, and in every case a nameless little baby will die a tragic and lonely death, a mother will never be quite the same, and all the gifts that child might have brought to humanity will be lost forever.

I would like to tell you that this bill does something to prevent that same thing from happening tomorrow, but it doesn't. Madam Speaker, this bill simply says that taxpayers in the future will no longer have to pay for or worry about their taxpayer dollars being used for that purpose. And whatever red herrings we may have heard from the opponents today, this bill does nothing more than require that abortion funding remain in the private sphere and outside the reach of government's coercive power.

The bill is a very simple piece of legislation without the complexity that it has been reputed to have. I would encourage all Americans to take a look at the underlying legislation so that you can see for yourself that this bill has no need of this motion to recommit.

Unlike the ObamaCare bill, this piece of simple legislation is only a few pages long and is easily understandable. The new majority writes its bills this way on purpose so that Members and the American people can be confident that this body is in fact carrying out the will of the people. That is exactly what this bill does, Madam Speaker, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion to recommit.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Madam Speaker, what he said.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall vote No. 270 for H. Con. Res. 35. If I were here, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Chair, I missed rollcall vote No. 273. If I were here, I would have voted ``no.''