Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 107 (Monday, July 18, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 107 (Monday, July 18, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H5135-H5141]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1920
CUT, CAP, AND BALANCE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Ellmers). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. 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

[[Page H5136]]

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.''

{time} 1930

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.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I thank my colleague from Arizona for his
learned words and eloquent words, quoting, Madam Speaker, Shakespeare.
I'll begin by quoting Yogi Berra, that great fount of wit, wisdom, and
good old American common sense. More recently, Yogi Berra said, When
you come to a fork in the road, take it. We find ourselves as Americans
right now certainly in a fork in the road--a fork in the road as a
Nation. Either we must act boldly or some would say we face financial
Armageddon. Unemployment is at 9.2 percent. Investment is down. Hiring
is sluggish. The American people are anxious about where they're going
to find jobs, where they're going to send their kids to school. People
in southern Indiana ask me all the time what they're going to do as we
fall further into the financial abyss. Our national debt is over $14
trillion--and growing.
We know we're not in the mess because the American people are taxed
too little. We're in this mess because Washington spends too darned
much. And we want to address that. So, as the President stands at this
fork in the road, having no plan and refusing to lead, we know that we
here in Congress must lead. We must act. We must, as we say in the
United States Marine Corps, we must have a bias for action. Well,
that's why we put forth this Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011. It's a
responsible action.
I'll briefly outline its finer points. First, it cuts total spending
by $111 billion in fiscal year 2012. No changes to Social Security, no
changes to Medicare, no changes to veterans' benefits. And considering
the size and scope of the massive debt crisis we face in this country,
it proposes a very modest cut of $111 billion next year--certainly a
manageable down payment as we work to address this leviathan debt we
face. It caps total Federal spending in the future as a portion of our
economy--that is the cap component of this cut, cap, and balance plan--
and brings down by the end of the decade our Federal spending to less
than 20 percent as a proportion of our economy. That's the post-World
War II average. Very sensible, very responsible. And then, finally, it
balances our budget. It does so through a balanced budget amendment
that will come up for a vote later, subject to the normal super
majority requirements in each House of Congress. This works in 49 of
the 50 States across this great Nation. It will work here in
Washington, too. If we have the courage to pass it.
The cut, cap, and balance plan will restore confidence. It will
restore confidence in investors around this world, people who are right
now eyeballing this body, wondering whether or not we're going to pass
a bold plan to address our financial situation and therefore maintain
our high AAA credit rating. It will restore confidence in those who
create jobs--the entrepreneurs, the innovators, the investors across
the fruited plains whom people rely on for their family incomes. It
will show them that we understand Washington has a problem, and we are
prepared to address it in a very specific way.
Finally, this will calm down, this will restore confidence among
those we represent. Yeah, we have a deficit in Washington. And it's not
just a financial deficit. It's a leadership deficit. We need to show
the American people we understand our Federal Government must balance
its books, just like American families and businesses are making hard
decisions and balancing their own books during this difficult time.
The President stands at this fork in the road. No plan, no action, no
leadership. And he characteristically refuses to choose a path. We have
laid out a path. The path is one of leadership. The path is one of
choosing. I believe that to lead is to choose. We must choose. I
encourage the members of this body, my esteemed colleagues, to choose
the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I would now yield to the gentleman from
Georgia for such time as he may consume.
Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Arizona and my
friend from Indiana. This, to me, tomorrow, where we are today, is a
monumental time in the history of this Nation. When we think about the
decisions and the debate, the discussions, the rhetoric of tomorrow, it
will be amazing to see who falls on which side. Because it's truly a
choice. It is a decision. And we've heard that this is going to be a
time of choosing. Tomorrow is the day.
We've had reckless debt and deficit for years now. It's not a
necessarily Democrat problem because Republicans have also been a part
of the

[[Page H5137]]

problem. We've seen both parties guilty in this time of fiscal
nonsense, the recklessness of Washington spending. But it's come to an
end. And we have an opportunity before us that I think is going to be
incredible.
So, tomorrow, as the debate begins, I hope the Nation is watching. I
hope the Nation is listening. I hope the Nation is witnessing their
Members of Congress, whom they voted for, sent to office to represent
them, watching to see how they will cast their vote. Of course, the
President has already shown his cards. We know how he's going to cast
his vote. I'd love to see us as a House pass it to the Senate, and the
Senate move it to the President, and him look the American people
square in the eye and say he is not for balancing the budget. He is not
for cutting spending. He is not for capping the Federal Government. How
defiant would that be to the American people?
His quote today was, We don't need a constitutional amendment to do
our jobs. Mr. President, the Constitution is there to protect the
American people from their government. What better opportunity to
protect them from the reckless spending of Washington than a balanced
budget amendment sent to the States? We do need the Constitution to
tell us how to balance the budget because apparently this place can't
do it on its own. Year after year after year it's been out of balance,
debt limits increased, spending out of control. And yet we have a
President who now, without a plan, but a framework, we hear--only
through press conference, press releases, and spokespersons--a
framework. Is that a plan? No, it's not a plan. We hear the Senate has
a plan. It's plan B, though. Why? Because plan A comes before the House
tomorrow. Plan A is to cut the Federal Government spending now. It is
to cap the Federal Government's size in the future. And it is to
balance the budget forevermore. That is what America is seeking right
now.
So, the time truly is for choosing. And the question before us
tomorrow as we all will watch the board light up, everyone will put in
their voting card--they're really casting a couple of different
decisions tomorrow. It's not just cut, cap, and balance, but it is:
What is our vision for America. What will it be? What will America be
in the future? That is the other question. I believe that those who
cast that ``aye'' button tomorrow, the green button, they are casting
their decision for a prosperous future for this country--a future in
which we do live within our means, a future that ensures prosperity for
the next generation. But then there are those, they'll cast a ``no''
vote. They'll cast the red vote. They will say, No, the status quo is
acceptable. Out-of-control spending, yeah, we'll get it through it. The
time will come, we will get by. Compromise is necessary. That will be
the ``no'' vote tomorrow.
Tomorrow's vote is so big. It is big. And I thank the gentleman from
Arizona for leading this hour tonight because it's a precursor to the
debate tomorrow--a debate that will be grand. I believe out of all the
votes I've cast in my short time just over a year here, tomorrow's
might be one of the most important votes I cast. And I stand before
this House tonight, Madam Speaker, before you to say you I'll be
casting that green vote for that prosperous future of this great Nation
we have, to restore it, reclaim that liberty that we all know is so
great and grand. And I look forward to joining many of my colleagues
such as the gentleman from Arizona.
Thank you.

{time} 1940

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the distinguished gentleman.
I now recognize the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr.
Bilbray).
Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you.
Madam Speaker, I am honored to speak to the words of my dear
colleague from Arizona, and I appreciate that he not only quoted
Shakespeare but that he also made a nautical reference to the facts of
life when the tides change. As a child of the ocean, I appreciate that.
Let me just say we've all got to understand how we got where we are
today. The fact is, in '06, the American people were fed up with the
Republicans spending too much, not because we had raised taxes or cut
taxes, but they were fed up with our spending habits. Four years later,
the same voters threw out the Democrats, not because they hadn't raised
taxes but because they had expanded expenditures extraordinarily. So I
think, if there were one indication that we ought to understand, it's
that when you navigate on the ocean you've learned to know which way
the waves are coming, which way the wind is coming, and you learn from
your experience that there are some things that you don't want to
fight.
One is the will of the American people.
As we look around the world, everybody celebrates the Arab Spring
where the average person in Arab countries is standing up and saying,
Not just ``no,'' but ``hell no.'' We're going to stand up and say,
We've had enough. What's happening there is happening in America, too.
The fact is that the average citizens in America, just like around the
world, now can communicate through the Internet, and no big government,
big operation, big cartel can keep them from communicating. So there is
an energy let loose not just in Arab countries but here in the United
States that says, America, we've got to live within our budget. You're
not going to tax us anymore.
Madam Speaker, I think we've got to remember that the American people
saw this coming. They saw starting in '08 a spending spree of
extraordinary spending that went off for 2 years. Actually, even before
the new administration went in there, the American people saw that
there was going to be spending done by Republicans or Democrats that
was going to be used as an excuse to raise taxes, and that's why they
said, We're taxed enough already. So we need to get down to the fact
that we're talking about where is the credibility of this government.
It has to be reinstalled by the fact that we can be trusted with the
budget--not trusted with raising taxes, but trusted with spending
control. That is going to be the real crisis.
Notable economist Art Laffer just said recently that he almost
compares what's being proposed by some in Washington to a couple going
out to Monaco and then to Italy and then to France and running up a big
bill and then coming back to their boss and saying, Oh, by the way,
Boss, we spent all this money. We need a pay raise--or how about this:
why don't you split half of the expense of my vacation with me. You pay
half of it and I'll pay half of it.
That kind of logic doesn't sell when you're facing off with your
employer. It darned well doesn't wash when you're facing off with your
employer here in Washington, which is the American taxpayer, and I
think we need to recognize that.
So, in all fairness, there are things we can do, Madam Speaker, to
stimulate the economy without borrowing money from China. We can bring
back almost $2 trillion of American money to create American jobs here
on American soil. Congress and the President just have to agree to do
it. The money is out there. It's not being taxed, and it's not coming
back if we don't eliminate the 35 percent penalty for it coming back.
Here is a place where we can invest in research and development, like
the President wants, and in construction. We can go into manufacturing
expansion--things for which the President and the Democrats in the past
have borrowed money from China in order to create that kind of stimulus
to the economy. We can create a stimulus to the economy, we can create
jobs and help to balance the budget, but first we've got to understand
that taxing people to death is not the answer to prosperity.
The answer for this family, called the American Nation, is just like
that of every other family: living within your means, understanding
your limits, spending within those limits, and not asking people to pay
for your extravagances.
So as we face a lot of challenges, I've just got to say to everybody
that you can look at what's going on in California today. Madam
Speaker, it is a State that is controlled by the left, that has driven
business out of the State, and the money now has run out. Not only did
citizens lose jobs when those businesses left; but because those jobs
are not there to pay the taxes, the

[[Page H5138]]

citizens of California, who have depended and expected to have their
health care paid by the State now are being told they have to expect
less because there is no more money to pay for those social benefits
that they were promised--promised in such inappropriate ways. As we
destroy businesses, we destroy jobs. Even those who are on public
assistance will be affected by this kind of destructive behavior.
The difference between raising the debt limit today and in the past
is that, in the past, all you had to do was raise the debt limit to
have groups like Moody's be able to talk about addressing this issue.
Fine, that's enough. Now the people who are raiding our dollar are
saying, You can't just raise the limit. You've got to show us that you
are serious about controlling the spending. Now this Congress has to do
something that no Congress has been forced to do in the past:
We have to address the issue of the debt limit but address the issue
of the debt at the same time.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. 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.

{time} 1950

I want to yield again to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Speaker, we are really at a threshold of making
decisions of: Are we willing to do what it takes to prove to the
American people that this Republican form of government actually can
function and address the long-term needs of America?
We're at a point to where we have to be able to show not just the
American people, but to people around the world, that our Republican
experiment, the Republic that we call the United States of America, can
function not just for 200 years but for hundreds of years on top of
that because we can make the tough decisions not just to go to war, not
just to respond to disasters, but to take care of our financial well-
being and that the elected representatives cannot use tax money to buy
votes and cannot be bullied by scare tactics away from doing what is
essential for the future of this country. That is a real test.
And remember, when we talk about Washington taking money, and I think
this is one thing Republicans and Democrats don't talk enough about. I
used to be a mayor. I was a mayor in my twenties. We forget that this
is not government--and I say this to my Republican colleagues. We say
that too much. This is not government we're talking about, but this is
Federal Government. This is totally different than your city council.
This is totally different than your county commissioners or
supervisors. This is not going to your school board. There, if they tax
you, you can go to their meetings and you can stand up at a podium and
you can tell that mayor what you think about his spending habits. You
can tell the county chairman what you think. The school board member is
required, by law, to hear your opinion about that.
But when your money is taken to Washington, you don't have the right
to even stand up and speak to the Congress. You try to stand up without
getting permission, they've got security to drag you off. There is a
big difference between sending your money to city hall and sending your
money to Washington, D.C. One, you are vested with rights to
participate in how that money is spent. Here in Washington, you are
disenfranchised except for one person, your Congressman. And that
person darn well is diluted and cannot speak for you personally but has
to represent you as part of a group.
So when we talk about Washington taking money, remember you've got
school boards, you've got counties, you've got cities. But Washington
is not just taking it away from the business community; it's taking it
away from the local government agencies that provide the baseline
services that are essential to all of us.
We keep talking about Washington is the great safety net. Excuse me.
Your city and your counties are the great safety net of civilized
services that we get into. The Federal Government, anybody that's lived
in Washington, D.C., understands that, that the local government is
where the essential services have gone. And when we take money out of a
community and bring it here to Washington, we're depriving those same
mayors and school board members and county commissioners the essential
services that make every day possible for our citizens. And when we do
that, even more importantly, we deprive the individual the ability to
participate in how their hard-earned money is spent.
So we should take as little as humanly possible to execute the
responsibilities and the mandates of the United States Constitution.
And maybe if we looked around a little more and focused on the
responsibilities that the Constitution gives us, Washington, D.C., as
opposed to mayors, council members and State legislators, maybe if we
didn't try to be everything to everyone, maybe we wouldn't be so greedy
at taking so much from the citizens of the United States. So I think
that that is one of those items we've got to constantly try to
remember.

[[Page H5139]]

And I say this to my Democratic colleagues and my Republican
colleagues. When we're talking about the Federal budget, we're not
talking about government. We're talking about Federal Government taking
these funds. And I think those are the central issues.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the gentleman from California.
I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. LAMBORN. I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona for
sponsoring this time to talk about the importance of having Cut, Cap,
and Balance. This is an historic vote that we're going to be taking in
the House tomorrow. And I think that it's critical that we have a
solution that will get our fiscal House in order.
Very few of the other people that are negotiating with the House
leadership--I am talking about the Senate Democratic leadership, the
White House, they're very short on having specific plans. I haven't
really seen anything in writing, in fact. I'd love to see something in
writing so we could actually do a financial analysis, a fiscal analysis
of one of the other plans. But this is a way forward that many of us
are looking forward to voting for tomorrow here on the floor.
And as you have been describing it, Representative Franks and Mr.
Bilbray of California, the elements of this plan are really wonderful
for the fiscal health and the financial future and the prosperity of
our country. America is a great country, and I don't want to see her go
into decline. And if we don't do something, that is the prospect that
we unfortunately have before us.
So I look forward to voting to cut the next year's budget by a
manageable amount. Sure, there will be some people who say, Don't cut
this; I'd rather you cut something else. But we have to live within our
means, so we're cutting from next year's budget.
We're also capping the next 10 years so that instead of the
unsustainable 24 or 25 percent spending of our gross domestic product
for the Federal Government, it's going to be brought down to about 20
percent or under 20 percent. That is important for living within our
means.
Historically, post-World War II, the revenues of the Federal
Government have been about 18 percent, nowhere near the 24 or 25
percent. Even 19.9 percent that this calls for after, like, year six or
seven is still higher than our revenues, but it's on a glide path, it's
on a trajectory that gets toward balance.

And the best thing of all is a balanced budget amendment. And this is
something that the minute, should it pass the House and Senate and go
to the States and should the three-quarters of the States, 38 of them,
pass it in their own legislatures and it becomes part of the U.S.
Constitution, at that moment we will live under a balanced budget,
whether that's 4 years or 8 years or 12 or however long that would
take. So this has a short-term, a medium-term, and a long-term solution
for the fiscal health of our country.
Now, if others say, Well, I don't like that plan; I'm going to vote
against it, I'd like to see their plan. The status quo is simply
unacceptable. We are headed toward a Greece-type default and
bankruptcy, and we just simply do not need to do that. So we have to
reduce our spending.
Representative Franks, you know this as well as I do. I have watched
and respect your voting record, and you're one for holding the line on
extraneous spending. And that's what it takes. Every family has to do
it. Every business has to do it. Every individual has to do it. When
your income is not as much as your outgo, you have to reprioritize. You
have to stop spending as much as you want to and you have to live
within your means. Every other government in the country has to do
that--cities, States, counties. They all have to do it. The Federal
Government is, for some reason, the only one that's exempt from these
fiscal laws of nature.
So we have this historic vote tomorrow. I'm really looking forward to
voting to cut, cap, and balance our Nation's finances. And
Representative Franks, I'm so glad that you are sponsoring this time so
that we can discuss this important issue.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the distinguished gentleman.
Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the remainder of the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 20 minutes remaining.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. With that, I would yield to the gentleman from
Indiana.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I thank the gentleman from Arizona.
Just an observation here. I know our President said earlier today
that we had--frankly, we don't need a constitutional amendment to do
our jobs. He was referring, of course, to this debt limit debate and
our insistence here in the House that we get some serious spending cuts
in conjunction with that debt limit and come up with a plan to get our
debt under control in the longer term.

{time} 2000

My response to this idea that we don't need a constitutional
amendment to do our jobs, first I look to the Constitution itself.
Article V of the Constitution, the first phrase there is pretty clear.
``The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution.''
I would say it's our duty, when we deem it necessary, to go ahead and
propound constitutional amendments to solve various problems here that
we think need to be addressed within our Federal Government. First, we
are duty-bound to put forward such a solution. Second, history bears
out many examples where institutionally or culturally or historically
the time has arisen for certain improvements in our way of government.
So we've put forth some fine amendments like, say, the 19th
Amendment, which gave women the guaranteed right to vote. I think
that's a fine thing. I think it was important that Congress put forth
amendments to guarantee women's right to vote so that we would do our
job. It was necessary. It was necessary to put forth that amendment,
just as it's necessary to put forth a constitutional balanced budget
amendment.
I guess the final thing I would say is it's necessary that we pass a
constitutional balanced budget amendment as part of this Cut, Cap, and
Balance Act of 2011 because it's the only viable plan we have on the
table right now. What is the President's plan to get our budget back
into balance? I ask that time and again. I have not seen any sort of
acceptable answer.
So we need to bind the hands of our political class. I think this
Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, which my colleagues have been speaking to
over recent minutes, is a very responsible direction to go, and I ask
for the consideration of my friends across the aisle as well.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. 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

[[Page H5140]]

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.

{time} 2010

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.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I thank my colleague from Arizona.
He said a couple of things that I would like to pivot off of. They
certainly struck a chord with me. First, the notion that markets deal
with perception, as opposed to always reality. I thought it was a
brilliant example of Fort Knox, should the gold be taken, the press
release versus the actuality of that gold being taken.
It reminded me of a conversation I had just today on the airplane as
I headed backed to Washington from my southern Indiana district. I was
sitting next to someone who dealt in the financial markets, and I asked
him a fairly pointed question. I said, you know, the media, in recent
days, in recent weeks, has really sort of ratcheted up attention, even
anxiety with respect to the debt limit debate and whether or not the
debt ceiling is, in fact, going to be raised, what is going to be
attached to a debt ceiling vote.
And I certainly understand this. I take this vote very seriously and
have factored into my calculus of voting for and against various
measures, the interest rate response we might see.
But the funny thing is there hasn't really been much of an interest
rate response. For all the hemming and hawing about what might happen
should we not raise the debt ceiling by August 2, there hasn't been an
interest rate response. And I find that amazing.
And so I asked my friend why he thought that was, and he put forth
one idea. He said certainly, Todd, that these are complicated matters,
and there are all different things that factor into them. But in his
professional opinion, one reason was that we finally have a group of
people in Washington that are taking very seriously this notion we
ought not spend more money than we bring in. That's pretty powerful.

[[Page H5141]]

I'm proud, as a new Representative, to be part of this group of
people supporting the cut, cap, and balance measure that would bring
our spending under control. So we ought to be proud. That's an early
victory. The markets, at least, believe we are serious about getting
this spending under control. I hope we can play this out and prove that
we are serious.
The other thing that my colleague from Arizona said that struck a
chord with me was this notion that statesmen look not just to the next
election, they look to the next generation.
There was a group of people back 150 years ago that entered politics.
It was around the 1850s, and they entered politics certainly looking to
the next generation. It was their belief that every man, woman, and
child should be entitled to the fruits of their labor. They weren't
partisans. In fact, they were Know-Nothings. They were independents,
some Democrats. They came together with this notion, though, that
everyone should be entitled to the fruits of their labor.
Well, when we continue to spend money we don't have, oftentimes on
things we don't need, and kick the debt forward another year, another 5
years, another 10 years, another generation or two down the road,
ladies and gentlemen, we are committing the fruits of the next
generation's labor to pay off our current debt.
Madam Speaker, I think this is wrong. I think this cut, cap, and
balance plan is a viable plan, a specific plan to stop this practice so
that everyone, my four children, everyone else's grandchildren and
great grandchildren, will not be paying off our future debts.
So again, I urge consideration and support of this cut, cap, and
balance plan. And for those who are unable to support it, I would ask
them to put forth a specific plan of their own, one that will get our
spending under control and put this Nation back on the right fiscal
course.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. 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.

____________________