[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11401-11447]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   CUT, CAP, AND BALANCE ACT OF 2011

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 
355, I call up the bill (H.R. 2560) to cut, cap, and balance the 
Federal budget, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 355, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 2560

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 
     2011''.

                              TITLE I--CUT

     SEC. 101. MODIFICATION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT.

       Title III of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended by inserting at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 316. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

       ``(a) In General.--It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, or conference report that would cause 
     the discretionary spending limits as set forth in this 
     section to be exceeded.
       ``(b) Limits.--In this section, the term `discretionary 
     spending limits' means for fiscal year 2012: for the 
     discretionary category, $1,019,402,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $1,224,568,000,000 in outlays.
       ``(c) Adjustments.--After the reporting of a bill or joint 
     resolution relating to the global war on terrorism described 
     in subsection (d), or the offering of an amendment thereto or 
     the submission of a conference report thereon--
       ``(1) the chair of the House or Senate Committee on the 
     Budget may adjust the discretionary spending limits provided 
     in this section for purposes of congressional enforcement, 
     the budgetary aggregates in the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget most recently adopted by the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, and allocations pursuant to section 302(a) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, by the amount of new 
     budget authority in that measure for that purpose and the 
     outlays flowing therefrom; and
       ``(2) following any adjustment under paragraph (1), the 
     House or Senate Committee on Appropriations may report 
     appropriately revised suballocations pursuant to section 
     302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to carry out 
     this subsection.
       ``(d) Global War on Terrorism.--If a bill or joint 
     resolution is reported making appropriations for fiscal year 
     2012 that provides funding for the global war on terrorism, 
     the allowable adjustments provided for in subsection (c) for 
     fiscal year 2012 shall not exceed $126,544,000,000 in budget 
     authority and the outlays flowing therefrom.

     ``SEC. 317. CERTAIN DIRECT SPENDING LIMITS.

       ``(a) In General.--It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, or conference report that includes any 
     provision that would cause total direct spending, except as 
     excluded in subsection (b), to exceed the limits specified in 
     subsection (c).
       ``(b) Exempt From Direct Spending Limits.--Direct spending 
     for the following functions is exempt from the limits 
     specified in subsection (c):
       ``(1) Social Security, function 650.
       ``(2) Medicare, function 570.
       ``(3) Veterans Benefits and Services, function 700.
       ``(4) Net Interest, function 900.
       ``(c) Limits on Other Direct Spending.--The total combined 
     outlays for all direct spending not exempted in subsection 
     (b) for fiscal year 2012 shall not exceed 
     $680,730,000,000.''.

     SEC. 102. STATUTORY ENFORCEMENT OF SPENDING CAPS THROUGH 
                   SEQUESTRATION.

       Title III of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended by inserting after section 317 the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 318. ENFORCEMENT OF DISCRETIONARY AND DIRECT SPENDING 
                   CAPS.

       ``(a) Implementation.--The sequesters shall be implemented 
     as follows:
       ``(1) Discretionary spending implementation.--For the 
     discretionary limits in section 316 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974, pursuant to section 251(a) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
     with each category sequestered separately.
       ``(2) Direct spending implementation.--(A) The 
     sequestration to enforce this section for direct spending 
     shall be implemented pursuant to section 254 of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       ``(B) Section 255 of the Balanced Budget and Control Act of 
     1985 shall not apply to this section, except that payments 
     for military personnel accounts (within subfunctional 
     category 051), TRICARE for Life, Medicare (functional 
     category 570), military retirement, Social Security 
     (functional category 650), veterans (functional category 
     700), net interest (functional category 900), and 
     discretionary appropriations shall be exempt.
       ``(b) Modification of Presidential Order.--
       ``(1) In general.--At any time after the Director of OMB 
     issues a sequestration report under subsection (a) and 
     section 319(c) the provisions of section 258A of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 shall apply 
     to the consideration in the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate of a bill or joint resolution to override the order if 
     the bill or joint resolution, as enacted, would achieve the 
     same level of reductions in new budget authority and outlays 
     for the applicable fiscal year as set forth in the order.
       ``(2) Point of order.--In the House of Representatives or 
     Senate, it shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint 
     resolution which waives, modifies, or in any way alters a 
     sequestration order unless the chair of the House or Senate 
     Committee on the Budget certifies that the measure achieves 
     the same levels of reductions in new budget authority and 
     outlays for the applicable year as set forth in the order.''.

                             TITLE II--CAP

     SEC. 201. LIMIT ON TOTAL SPENDING.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 250(c) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by striking 
     paragraph (4), redesignating the succeeding paragraphs 
     accordingly, and adding the following new paragraph:
       ``(19) The term `GDP', for any fiscal year, means the gross 
     domestic product during such fiscal year consistent with 
     Department of Commerce definitions.''.
       (b) Caps.--The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended 
     by inserting after section 318 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 319. ENFORCING GDP OUTLAY LIMITS.

       ``(a) Enforcing GDP Outlay Limits.--In this section, the 
     term `GDP outlay limit' means an amount, as estimated by OMB, 
     equal to--
       ``(1) projected GDP for that fiscal year as estimated by 
     OMB, multiplied by
       ``(2) 21.7 percent for fiscal year 2013; 20.8 percent for 
     fiscal year 2014; 20.2 percent for fiscal year 2015; 20.1 
     percent for fiscal year 2016; 19.9 percent for fiscal year 
     2017; 19.7 percent for fiscal year 2018; 19.9 percent for 
     fiscal year 2019; 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2020; and 19.9 
     percent for fiscal year 2021.
       ``(b) GDP Outlay Limit and Outlays.--
       ``(1) Determining the gdp outlay limit.--The Office of 
     Management and Budget shall establish in the President's 
     budget the GDP outlay limit for the budget year.
       ``(2) Total federal outlays.--In this section, total 
     Federal outlays shall include all on-budget and off-budget 
     outlays.
       ``(c) Sequestration.--The sequestration to enforce this 
     section shall be implemented pursuant to section 254 of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       ``(d) Exempt Programs.--Section 255 of the Balanced Budget 
     and Control Act of 1985 shall not apply to this section, 
     except that payments for military personnel accounts (within 
     subfunctional category 051), TRICARE for Life, Medicare 
     (functional category 570), military retirement, Social 
     Security (functional category 650), veterans (functional 
     category 700), and net interest (functional category 900) 
     shall be exempt.''.

     SEC. 202. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES UNDER THE CONGRESSIONAL 
                   BUDGET ACT OF 1974.

       (a) Enforcement.--Title III of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 is amended by adding after section 319 the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 320. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES.

       ``It shall not be in order in the House of Representatives 
     or the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that would cause the most 
     recently reported current GDP outlay limits set forth in 
     section 319 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to be 
     exceeded.''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act 
     of 1974 is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 315 the following new items:

``Sec. 316. Discretionary spending limits.
``Sec. 317. Certain direct spending limits.
``Sec. 318. Enforcement of discretionary and direct spending caps.
``Sec. 319. Enforcing GDP outlay limits.
``Sec. 320. Enforcement procedures.''.

[[Page 11402]]



                           TITLE III--BALANCE

     SEC. 301. REQUIREMENT THAT A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT BE 
                   SUBMITTED TO STATES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall not 
     exercise the additional borrowing authority provided under 
     subsection (b) until the Archivist of the United States 
     transmits to the States H.J. Res. 1 in the form reported on 
     June 23, 2011, S.J. Res. 10 in the form introduced on March 
     31, 2011, or H.J. Res. 56 in the form introduced on April 7, 
     2011, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, or a 
     similar amendment if it requires that total outlays not 
     exceed total receipts, that contains a spending limitation as 
     a percentage of GDP, and requires that tax increases be 
     approved by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress for 
     their ratification.
       (b) Amendment to Title 31.--Effective on the date the 
     Archivist of the United States transmits to the States H.J. 
     Res 1 in the form reported, S.J. Res. 10 in the form 
     introduced, or H.J. Res. 56 in the form introduced, a 
     balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, or a similar 
     amendment if it requires that total outlays not exceed total 
     receipts, contains a spending limitation as a percentage of 
     GDP, and requires tax increases be approved by a two-thirds 
     vote in both Houses of Congress for their ratification, 
     section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking the dollar limitation contained in such 
     subsection and inserting $16,700,000,000,000.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) each will control 2 hours.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), a member of the Budget 
Committee, control 30 minutes; the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Garrett), the vice chair of the Budget Committee, control 30 minutes; 
and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) control 30 minutes of debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. With respect to the remaining time, I will 
reserve the balance of my time and turn it over to the gentleman from 
Utah.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Utah.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, today is an historic today. We have an opportunity in 
this body to send a strong signal to the country that we're going to 
live within our means. At the heart of this discussion is a discussion 
about whether or not our country is going to live within its means.
  What we ask for at the heart of this proposal is that we balance our 
budget. It's something that families do. It's something that businesses 
do. A balanced budget amendment is something that 49 States across the 
country have.
  Unfortunately, in Congresses past, Presidents past, we have not lived 
within our means. I have heard the argument that says, Oh, we don't 
need a constitutional amendment; we just need to do our job.
  Madam Speaker, we find this Nation more than $14 trillion in debt. 
We're paying more than $600 million a day in interest on that debt. Now 
imagine, imagine the United States of America without that debt. We 
don't get anything for that $600 million. But it's an obligation. We 
need to live up to those obligations.
  What this bill says is very simple:
  We're going to cut. We're going to make an immediate cut to some 
spending, a paltry $111 billion in the first year. Number two, we're 
going to cap as a percentage of our gross domestic product the amount 
of money that we're going to spend going forward so that there are 
targets in place for future Congresses to consider and weigh and make 
the good decisions that need to be made. How are we going to prioritize 
things? And, number three, we are going to seek to have a balanced 
budget amendment come to the floor of the House, come to the Senate, 
and pass both bodies.
  If we can make that historic move and pass to the States a balanced 
budget amendment, then we will solve the underlying challenge that 
faces this country: We are spending too much money. I think everybody 
understands that. But the question is: Are we really going to do 
something about it?
  The question for the President, the question for this body moving 
forward, is: Do we have the fortitude to actually put before the States 
an amendment? That's all we ask. Can the States have a say in this?
  To my Senate colleagues, Madam Speaker, I would encourage them, they 
are to represent the States. What are they afraid of if they won't send 
a balanced budget amendment forward for their ratification?
  We have to change the way we do business in Washington, D.C. America 
gets it. America understands it. But this body, in its history, has not 
lived up to that call. The future of our Nation depends upon it.
  There is going to be all kinds of rhetoric about how we're cutting 
Medicare. It's not true. It simply says we're going to have to put 
ourselves on a glide path to get some fiscal sanity back here.
  Now, there is a timetable that is before us. We're going to run out 
of money. We're spending money we don't have. But there is a timetable 
before us. And so in just 2 weeks, we're going to come upon this 
deadline. This is a real plan that can solve the problem and something 
that should be widely embraced on both sides of the aisle.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, this is no time for this body to be playing dangerous 
games with the American economy and with American jobs, and yet that's 
exactly what's going on on the floor of this House today. Our 
Republican colleagues are taking the position that unless and until we 
accept their radical budget plan, they will prevent the United States 
from paying its bills.
  And what does their budget plan do? Yes, it is the same old plan to 
end the Medicare guarantee, to slash Medicaid, to cut education while 
protecting special interest tax breaks, like subsidies for Big Oil 
companies.
  And here's what they're saying: Unless we do that, unless we take 
that, they're going to prevent the United States from paying its bills.
  Remember, these are bills that are coming due on actions that this 
Congress has already taken. These are the bills to pay for two wars. 
These are bills to pay for the prescription drug plan that was never 
paid for. And one of the primary reasons we don't have enough revenue 
coming in to pay those bills is because of the tax cuts in 2001 and 
2003 that disproportionately benefited the very wealthy.
  It's interesting to hear some of our Republican colleagues who have 
been here for that entire period of time and voted on all those things 
saying that it's a sacrifice for them to accept responsibility and pay 
the bills for the things they voted for. Imagine if the American people 
took that position.
  And what are the consequences of the United States failing to pay its 
bills? The same thing that would happen to an American family that 
decided not to pay its bills, whether it's its mortgage, its car 
payment, whatever it might be. It would undermine the creditworthiness 
of that American family.
  And taking that action will undermine the creditworthiness of the 
United States. That will lead to a rise in interest rates and a sinking 
economy. It would hurt every American family. And it would increase--
not decrease--the deficit of the United States. That is the result our 
Republican colleagues are threatening in this bill if their demands are 
not met.
  So let's dig a little deeper into those demands. As I say, what they 
want to do is impose the same budget plan that they voted on earlier in 
this House and we debated. It does end the Medicare guarantee, it does 
slash Medicaid and education, and it does protect corporate tax 
loopholes. Only this time it's worse, because they want to take that 
budget plan and implant it in the Constitution of the United States.
  Now, nobody in this body should be fooled for one moment. This is not 
an ordinary balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. We can have 
that debate, and there are legitimate arguments. This does something 
very different and very sinister. It manipulates the Constitution of 
the United States in a way to graft the Republican budget plan into the 
Constitution. How does

[[Page 11403]]

it do it? There are two devices, and the gentleman knows them well.

                              {time}  1450

  The first is, it says you can cut Medicare, you can cut Social 
Security, you can cut education, with a majority vote. But if you want 
to cut a subsidy for a Big Oil company for the purposes of reducing the 
deficit, if you want to cut corporate jet loopholes for the purpose of 
reducing the deficit, that's not a majority vote. That's a 
supermajority, two-thirds vote. So it biases the Constitution itself in 
a manner that prefers cuts to Medicare beneficiaries who have a median 
income of under $22,000 before asking the very wealthiest in our 
country to return to the same tax rates that were in place during the 
Clinton administration.
  Secondly, it says, we have to pass a constitutional amendment in the 
next 2 days that also includes an overall cap on spending. And if you 
look at the bill that came out of the Judiciary Committee, what that 
would impose is an 18 percent cap. Maybe 18 percent, maybe 19 percent 
in the end, we don't know, but you have to have a cap. And the one 
that's come out so far has an 18 percent cap.
  Now, let's put that number into context. Not since 1966, just after 
we enacted Medicare to protect our senior citizens from health crisis, 
not since that time has the United States met that level of 
expenditures. We've been over that level of expenditures. So by putting 
that cap on, combined with the provision to make it easier to cut 
Medicare than it is to cut corporate tax subsidies, they are writing 
into the Constitution itself this bias. They're stacking the 
constitutional deck in favor of engrafting their budget plan into our 
founding document.
  Now, I heard the gentleman say, and we hear it many times, and I hope 
we won't hear it again on this floor today, 49 of the 50 States have 
balanced budget amendments. That's true. But they don't have this kind 
of balanced budget amendment. They don't have balanced budget 
amendments with these pernicious features, with some exceptions.
  Fourteen States have a supermajority requirement written into their 
constitution. For a good number of those, it's less than two-thirds, 
which is what this would require. Sixteen States write into their 
Constitution spending caps, and only seven States in the country 
combine the two.
  So let's not talk about how every State can balance the budget, an 
argument which also ignores the reality that the Federal Government is 
not just any old State. It is the Federal Government of the United 
States of America. It needs to be able to respond to emergencies and 
wars and the like.
  So let me close with this, Madam Speaker. We do need to, number one, 
make sure we pay our bills; and, number two, we need to get our 
deficits under control in a way that helps our economy, not hurts it. 
And that's why the President of the United States put forward a 
proposal that is modeled on the framework that was put forward by the 
Simpson-Bowles commission. It doesn't have every detail in it, but it 
adopts that framework that says let's cut the deficit by approximately 
$4 trillion over the next 10 years. Let's do it in a balanced way. In 
fact, it's tilted toward spending cuts--$3 of spending cuts for every 
dollar in revenue. He makes it very clear he wants to get the revenue, 
closing some of these corporate tax loopholes, asking the top 2 percent 
of income earners in the United States to just go back to the rates 
they were paying during the Clinton administration, a time we all 
remember when the economy was booming and we created 20 million jobs.
  So let's take a balanced approach to this. Let's not take the 
position that if our demands are not met, if we can not manipulate the 
Constitution of the United States to engraft our budget plan into that 
founding document, then we're going to let the United States fail to 
pay its bills and suffer the terrible economic consequences. It's not 
so much Members in this body that will be suffering those; its the 
American people. Let's not do that to the American people.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I would ask the gentleman if he could give us a copy of 
that plan right now here during this debate, we would certainly 
appreciate it.
  The second thing is what we're talking about is a balanced budget. 
That's really what we're talking about.
  I now yield 1 minute to our leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, it is time to be honest with the American 
people. At a time when our government borrows 40 cents of every dollar 
it spends, we have got no choice but to cut spending and begin living 
within our means.
  Contrary to what the gentleman on the other side of the aisle 
continues to say, no one, no one wants to bring default onto our 
country. And with millions of Americans out of work, we've got to focus 
on getting the economy growing again.
  We, as Republicans, as the new majority in this House, as the 
gentleman from Maryland knows, have put a plan on the table that 
ensures Washington does not continue to spend money it doesn't have. 
House Republicans have a plan to cut, cap, and balance our way to 
prosperity. This commonsense legislation provides a straightforward 
plan to curb our massive debt and to finally begin to limit spending.
  The legislation before us would require, one, a balanced budget 
component; two, a supermajority requirement to raise taxes on the 
American people; and, three, a limit on spending as a percentage of 
GDP.
  Madam Speaker, today the House has the opportunity to show the people 
that sent us here that we are serious about turning the page on the 
failed fiscal policies that this town has been about over the last 
several decades and begin to get the fiscal house in order.
  House Republicans were voted into office to change the culture in 
Washington, and we will not support the other side's request or the 
President's request to increase the debt limit without meaningful 
reforms to the system.
  Forty-nine States, including my home State of Virginia, already have 
a balanced budget requirement, and it's time that the Federal 
Government reflect the same policy to get our fiscal house in order. 
Cut, Cap, and Balance makes sure that we begin to treat taxpayer 
dollars more responsibly, just like families and businesses do with 
their own budgets.
  We need to act today. We cannot continue to kick the can down the 
road.
  Madam Speaker, the President continues to say, as the gentleman on 
the other side tries to imply as well, that they want to do big things. 
We do as well, as evidenced by our budget that we put on the table. But 
we implore the other side to get serious. Let's do big things. Let's 
get our fiscal house in order. But let's do so without imposing higher 
taxes on the small business people that we so desperately need to start 
hiring again.
  And the gentleman from Maryland loves to talk about those corporate 
loopholes. He loves to talk about corporate jet owners and the kind of 
preferences that exist in the Code. The gentleman from Maryland knows 
all too well, he and I were in discussions for almost 7 weeks when I 
said, again and again, that we would be happy to engage in a discussion 
of tax reform to get rid of those loopholes. The gentleman also knows 
that those loopholes and the costs associated with those loopholes pale 
in comparison to the problem.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANTOR. I will not yield.
  So I know it makes for good politics to go throw the shiny ball out 
there, Madam Speaker, that somehow Republicans are wed to that kind of 
policy to sustain these preferences, when all along, in our budget and 
in our plan, we have said we are for tax reform. We have said we are 
for bringing down rates on everybody.
  And that's it, Madam Speaker. Let's get serious and stop playing 
politics. It's not about that. There is no disagreement that any of us 
want to support those loopholes.
  But what's really going on, Madam Speaker, in all of the debt 
discussion,

[[Page 11404]]

in all of the negotiation, is the fact that the minority and its party 
and the President continue to insist that we raise taxes on the small 
business people that we need so desperately to begin creating jobs and 
hiring people again.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I wish the gentleman had yielded 
because I think it would have become very clear that the Republican 
position is they won't close a tax loophole that generates one penny 
for deficit reduction, not one penny.

                              {time}  1500

  So you can't close a corporate jet loophole if it's going to deficit 
reduction. You can't say to the oil and gas companies we're going to 
end your subsidy if it's going to go for deficit reduction. We all know 
there are a lot of Washington lobbyists that manipulate the Tax Code 
around here. Getting a tax break, a taxpayer giveaway to the Tax Code, 
is just like getting something through spending, and yet our Republican 
colleagues refuse to allow any cut in a loophole to go to deficit 
reduction, not one penny.
  Again, we heard it from the majority leader, we're going to hear it I 
guess all day, 49 out of 50 States have balanced budget amendments. 
This is not the kind of balanced budget amendment States have. This 
writes into the Constitution of the United States again a preference 
for cutting Medicare and Social Security--that requires a majority 
vote--but in order to close one of those corporate tax loopholes for 
the purpose of reducing the deficit you need a two-thirds vote. You're 
going to imbed into the Constitution of the United States those policy 
preferences. That is exactly what this does.
  So let's not hear about the 49 States. They don't all have these 
spending caps, and they don't all have that preference protecting 
special interest tax breaks from use for deficit reduction.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished leader of the 
Democratic Caucus, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise to associate myself 
with the remarks of the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van 
Hollen).
  Let me say that in his opening comments I think he has laid it out 
pretty well. Cut, cap and balance--one has to resist on our side the 
notion that this is cut, cap, and get rid of Medicare.
  The public has had it with this theater of the absurd that's going 
on. They want Congress to come together, as our President has 
suggested, and do the most important thing that we can--create jobs for 
the American people.
  At Augie & Ray's in my hometown, people ask me, what's going on? 
Seems like a light beer commercial where there is this endless 
quibbling back and forth, with people on both sides of the aisle who 
care deeply about their country but seem to do little about putting the 
Nation back to work.
  We face a crisis with a debt ceiling, a debt ceiling that 17 times 
under Ronald Reagan was lifted without any bill being held hostage, and 
clearly not programs like Medicare and Social Security. This is a time 
for us to come together and reason in a rational process. There are no 
immediate tax impositions placed by the President--all of you who have 
been in negotiations understand and know that. In fact, this Congress, 
when we were in the majority, passed the largest tax cut for the middle 
class.
  I continue to believe that the people in my home town have it right, 
that the issue is about jobs. We cannot take this Nation up to the 
precipice, up to the cliff again and risk endangerment of default. As 
Ronald Reagan said, this would be a catastrophe for this country to 
allow this to take place. We need to stay at the table and continue to 
negotiate around the idea of jobs, taking a look at those things 
strategically that can be cut that create jobs, and those revenues that 
can be enhanced to create jobs to put the American people back to work. 
That's what the American people want to see, the Congress that can come 
together.
  I stand by our President and by this great chairman in making sure 
that we don't go through this theater of the absurd. You know that this 
is not a true balanced budget amendment. You know that in your heart. 
You have talented and good people on your side, as do we. Let's be 
about putting America back to work and create jobs. Let's not talk 
about defaulting on the Nation. We're defaulting on the American 
people. Let's talk about putting them back to work. That's what we need 
to do in this Nation.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. For 2 years under Barack Obama, the Democrats had the 
House and Senate and the Presidency, you didn't do a thing to touch 
those so-called ``loopholes.'' To try to feign how exasperated you are 
at this point is somewhat disingenuous to somebody who sat here for 2 
years with you having the House, the Senate, and the Presidency and 
doing nothing about it.
  What we're fighting for is more taxpayers, not more taxes. When the 
President said he was going to veto this bill, it provided a whole lot 
of clarity to a guy like me. Because if we can't find common ground on 
balancing the budget--how dare we offer that we want to balance the 
budget? That's all we ask for in this country, is put us on a 
trajectory to balance the budget.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members that all 
remarks should be addressed to the Chair.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Price), the chairman of the House Policy Committee.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I'll tell you, my friend talks about the theater of 
the absurd. I'll tell you what's absurd: It's saying that they have a 
plan when they have no plan at all. That is what's absurd.
  That we are here today dealing with this challenge ought not be a 
surprise to anybody. Decade after decade, Congress after Congress, 
President after President, they have borrowed too much, spent too much, 
and taxed too much, which is why our new majority--now just over 6 
months in office--has put forward positive, substantive proposals to 
change the way that Washington does business. It's exactly what America 
is demanding.
  Our challenges are huge, but solutions based upon principle is 
exactly what is needed, and hence this current bill, with short-term, 
midterm and long-term solutions. In the short term, responsible, 
appropriate spending reductions. In the midterm, limit and control 
Federal spending as a percent of gross domestic product. And in the 
long term, stop the madness. Force Washington to do what every single 
family in this country does and every single business in this country 
does, and that is to balance our budget.
  President Obama has issued a veto threat, saying essentially that 
balancing the budget is an unrealistic policy goal. This is an 
administration that says it wants to do big things. Mr. President, is 
getting our debt and deficit under control too much to ask? Is that too 
big, Mr. President? What is unrealistic is to assume that we can spend 
at the levels that President Obama and congressional Democrats have 
done over the past few years, amass trillion-dollar annual deficits, 
and still have a vibrant economy. Now that's unrealistic. Putting 
America's fiscal house in order is not only realistic and achievable, 
it's imperative; it's imperative in order to get our economy moving 
again and create jobs.
  This bill is a positive solution, a commonsense solution, an honest 
solution, and a bold solution. I encourage my colleagues to support 
this bill and begin to travel on a path to prosperity.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to make a couple of points in response to statements that 
have been raised.
  Not only would this write in the Constitution a two-thirds 
requirement for getting rid of special interest tax breaks for the 
purposes of deficit reduction, it would make it easier to create new 
special interest tax loopholes

[[Page 11405]]

than to eliminate them. If a Washington lobbyist is pushing for a big 
special break, you can do that with a majority vote under this 
constitutional amendment. But if you want to eliminate one of those 
special interest tax loopholes, whoops, you need a two-thirds vote.
  Now let's be very clear on what the President has said. Yes, we want 
to close those corporate loopholes. He has also been very clear that 
beginning in 2013 we should go back to asking the very top income 
earners to pay the same rates they were paying during the Clinton 
administration, which, as I said, was a time when the economy was 
booming. Now every time we mention that fact we hear our Republican 
colleagues talk about small business and how they're going to protect 
small business. When you hear that language, you really know that 
they're using that as cover to protect some of these big special 
interests.

                              {time}  1510

  Why do I say that? We agree that small businesses are the engine of 
this economy; but if you look at the Joint Tax Committee report, July 
12, nonpartisan, they say that 3 percent of all businesses would even 
be impacted-- only 3 percent. Less than 3 percent of all businesses 
would be impacted by the President's proposal, those that file as S 
corporations. And then it goes on to provide a warning here, 
specifically saying beware because these entities might not be 
``small,'' in quotes.
  In fact, they say in 2005, over 12,000 S corporations and 6,000 
partnerships had receipts of more than $50 million. Among those are KKR 
and Pricewaterhouse. Now these are all good businesses, but I would ask 
my colleagues whether they are small businesses. And let's not use the 
rhetoric of small businesses to protect preferences for the big guys.
  We all need to share responsibility for getting this deficit under 
control. We need a balanced approach to doing that.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania 
(Ms. Schwartz), my colleague on the Budget Committee.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the ranking 
member and this discussion.
  Let me be very clear. Let me start by just saying that Republicans 
continue to play politics rather than do what is best for this country, 
particularly to do what is responsible at a critical time for our 
Nation. They are once again holding American families and American 
businesses hostage by threatening to allow the United States to default 
on our debt, to not meet our responsibilities until their extreme 
ideological demands are met.
  Their plan is not a balanced approach to what is right for our 
country. It ends the Medicare guarantee for our seniors. Let me repeat 
that: It ends the Medicare guarantee for our seniors. And it slashes 
educational opportunities for the next generation of Americans. It 
inhibits our ability to foster an environment for private sector 
economic growth by cutting any chance of investment in scientific 
research and technology, in roads, bridges and highways, and in access 
to higher education, to the very, very kinds of actions we need to take 
to establish an atmosphere for private sector growth in this Nation, 
whether large or small business.
  The Republican plan is disastrous at a very fragile time in our 
economic recovery. It will devastate America's future economic 
competitiveness. The Republican majority has yet to produce legislation 
that puts the American economy back on track and Americans back to 
work.
  This legislation guarantees that we won't meet our obligations of the 
Nation to our seniors or to our children, and it would dramatically 
reduce our ability to compete in a global economy. Make no mistake, the 
Republican plan is, and always has been, to cut Social Security and 
Medicare, to cap economic opportunity, and to balance the budget on the 
backs of middle class families.
  Cut, Cap, and Balance is bad for American families, bad for American 
businesses, and bad for our Nation's economy now and into the future. 
We should not let it pass.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, the only thing Cut, Cap, and Balance is 
bad for is for Members of Congress because we are going to actually 
rein in spending. They're actually going to have to live within a 
balanced budget.
  I would also highlight rule XXI, section 5(b). I have heard a lot of 
rhetoric in the news and other places about how there is going to be 
such a higher standard. It should be noted that the passage of a tax 
rate increase, a bill or joint resolution, amendment, or conference 
report carrying a Federal income tax rate increase may not be 
considered as passed or agreed to unless so determined by a vote of not 
less than three-fifths of the Members voting.
  It was that same standard and threshold when Nancy Pelosi was the 
Speaker of the House as it is today, so we have had that higher 
standard for raising taxes. That is nothing new.
  At this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble), a freshman Member.
  Mr. RIBBLE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2560, the 
Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011.
  To put our Nation back on the path to prosperity, government needs to 
truly live within its means, and that means Congress must be required 
to pass budgets that spend the same amount of money that comes in.
  Just last weekend, S&P announced they were reviewing America's AAA 
bond rating. They warned if Congress and the President could not reach 
an agreement to structurally reform our spending and debt problems, not 
just raising the debt ceiling, our country will face a risk of having 
its bond rating downgraded. This will not only result in higher 
borrowing rates for individuals and businesses, but also stifle new job 
creation and capital investment. We simply cannot allow this to happen.
  A few days ago, President Obama said we have to eat our peas. Well, I 
couldn't agree more. Our bloated and obese Federal budget needs a 
healthy and balanced diet, one that trims the fat of overspending and 
grows the muscle of our Nation's economy. And that's exactly what H.R. 
2560 does. It provides a balanced approach to our Nation's fiscal 
problems, and there is nothing more balanced than a balanced budget. 
There is nothing more American than permitting the States and, more 
importantly, the American people to have a voice in the direction this 
Nation will take. There is nothing more prudent than stepping forward 
and leading today so our children and grandchildren will have a better 
future tomorrow.
  The future of our country is on the line; and if this body wants to 
ensure a brighter, more prosperous future for our children and 
grandchildren, we must fundamentally change Washington's spending 
habits.
  It is time to cut up the Federal credit card and stop placing this 
government's out-of-control spending habits onto the backs of future 
generations. This bill does exactly that. I am proud to support it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, the sponsor of the bill mentioned some 
House rules. I think he is well aware that you can always waive House 
rules by majority vote. Thank goodness you cannot just waive the 
Constitution of the United States. Our Founders made it difficult to 
get bad ideas into the Constitution. Again, I want to make it clear, 
this is not your garden-variety balanced budget amendment. This is 
manipulating the Constitution of the United States itself in a way that 
makes it easier to cut Medicare, easier to cut Social Security, and 
easier to cut education than it is to cut corporate tax loopholes for 
the purpose of reducing the deficit.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. 
McCollum), a member of the Budget Committee.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, the bill on the floor right now is a 
political gimmick. It is a stunt. It is not a serious effort. But this 
bill does reflect Republican values. This Republican bill protects the 
wealthiest Americans. This Republican bill pummels seniors and the 
middle class. And,

[[Page 11406]]

no surprise, this bill panders, even grovels to the Tea Party 
extremists.
  This bill will end the Medicare guarantees. This bill will kill jobs. 
And, thank goodness, this bill will never pass the United States 
Senate. This bill will never become law.
  The Republican majority is wasting precious time as the clock ticks 
and ticks closer to default and economic disaster. The Republican 
majority is choosing to bring America to the brink of default for 
reasons that have everything to do with politics and nothing to do with 
reasonable governing. The American people reject the Tea Party's 
dangerous brand of Armageddon economics. It is time to take 
responsibility for paying America's bills and raise the debt ceiling 
without Tea Party gimmicks and games.
  This Congress needs to take a serious stand and get busy creating 
jobs and putting people back to work and getting this economy growing. 
Let's end the debate on this radical legislation right now. Let's get 
to the real work of cutting deficits, creating jobs, and growing the 
economy.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Flores), a member of the House Budget Committee.
  Mr. FLORES. Madam Speaker, on July 15, 2011, just 4 days ago, 
President Obama said, ``We don't need a constitutional amendment to do 
our jobs.'' But the President clearly does. Let's go through the facts 
which the other side has conveniently forgotten.
  In the 30 months that he has been President, a short 30 months, he 
has added almost $4 trillion to our national debt. That is $133 billion 
a month, $3.1 million per minute, $51,000 per second.
  We have seen the destruction of Medicare through the enactment of 
ObamaCare, making Medicare insolvent by more than $60 trillion. You 
want to talk about Medicare destruction, you can look right over here 
and see Medicare destruction.
  We have almost 40 million Americans on food stamps, the most ever. We 
have spent $1 trillion on a stimulus plan, but we still have one out of 
every six working-age Americans either underemployed or unemployed.

                              {time}  1520

  This is what Mr. Obama calls ``winning the future.'' That's what he 
threatened in his veto of Cut, Cap, and Balance.
  He wants to win the future. Mr. Obama, you're not winning the future. 
You're not winning anything. The Obama plan for our country is tax, 
spend, and regulate; not winning the future.
  More taxes mean fewer jobs. More spending and more debt: fewer jobs 
and less economic growth. More regulation: fewer jobs, less economic 
growth.
  And with the Obama plan, there's more. You get to have gasoline 
prices that are double what they were when he was inaugurated. But 
there is a real plan to correct this.
  Cut, Cap, and Balance takes away the blank check that this Congress 
has exercised for decades and that this President clearly seems to 
enjoy. It's time we stopped the blank check spending now and take the 
necessary steps to force Washington to act responsibly and live within 
its means just like my constituents in Texas do already. It's time for 
Cut, Cap, and Balance.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
  The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. FLORES. When I was sworn in, my constituents gave me a stamp that 
said: Non-Sufficient Funds, Denied By Taxpayers. Mr. Obama, your plan 
is denied by taxpayers.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, when we were all sworn in, we were 
also sworn to protect the Constitution of the United States, not 
manipulate the Constitution of the United States to protect special 
interest tax breaks for oil and gas companies or other special 
interests by implanting into that document a requirement that two-
thirds of this body and the Senate have to vote to get rid of them for 
purposes of deficit reduction.
  I also think that while we're all entitled to our own opinions, we're 
not entitled to our own facts. If you look at the Medicare trustees' 
report, it will indicate that the health care reform bill extended the 
life of the trust fund, and we also did it by getting rid of the 
overpayments to some of the Medicare Advantage plans that were being 
paid at 114 percent of what other plans were being paid for. Taxpayers 
were oversubsidizing those plans, as were Medicare recipients.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to a terrific member of the Budget 
Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).
  Mr. TONKO. I thank the ranking member of the committee for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, there is not a single person in this Chamber who 
doesn't want to balance the budget, but the legislation before us today 
is not about that. It is about enshrining a particularly radical 
interpretation of the Republican agenda into the foundational document, 
a precious document, our Constitution, that guides our system of 
government.
  If successful, it would put in place a cap on Federal spending at 18 
percent of GDP, turning back the clock more than half a century to the 
glory days of 1966. Though it makes for a great press release, why 
didn't anyone else think of this solution? Even President Reagan never 
once requested a Federal budget that spent nearly this low.
  Well, to begin with, our population is much larger and much older on 
average than it was in 1966. Some see that as a problem. Seniors are 
expensive, they say. I suppose that's one way of looking at it. And if 
all you're worried about is how much Grandma's nursing home care costs, 
then this is the bill for you. But since 1966, Grandma is living, on 
average, nearly 10 years longer. There is no price you can place on 
that, and there is no question that it's because she's getting a 
guaranteed level of health care.
  This bill, according to their own leaders, enshrines the Republican 
plan to end Medicare in the United States Constitution. Right there, 
after the freedom of religion, the freedom of thought, the freedom of 
assembly, we can have the freedom from health care after age 65.
  This is nothing more than a political stunt, a gimmick that would 
change the fundamental rules of our democratic system so our Republican 
colleagues can make it easier to end Medicare and more difficult to cut 
tax giveaways to millionaires, to billionaires and their friends in Big 
Oil.
  Let's stop this nonsense and get back to work. Let's stop the 
nonsense that is playing games with America's working families. They 
promote this as a way to fiscal sanity, but, rather, it's a lack of 
investment in sanity. It's an assault on our children, our families, 
our veterans, our seniors. Let's put America back to work. Let's invest 
in those opportunities and reduce the deficit as we move forward. 
Enough with the foolish gimmicks.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I love that: foolish gimmicks, balancing our budget.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I rise in strong support of the Cut, Cap, and Balance 
legislation. I commend the gentleman from Utah and all the others who 
have brought this forward, and here's why, right here:
  We had a vote here on the floor of this House a few weeks ago about 
the President of the United States' request: just give me a clean debt 
limit increase. Every single Republican and nearly a majority of the 
Democrats voted to do the opposite, to not give him a debt limit 
increase.
  This shows us why we are here today with Cut, Cap, and Balance 
legislation. This is the track that the Democrats have us on right now. 
This is the track we would be on if the President had gotten his wish 
for a debt limit increase without any spending cuts, without any caps 
on future spending, and without what 80 percent of the American people 
want, which is a balanced budget amendment to the United States 
Constitution.
  This green line is what we're voting on today. This is what the House 
budget, already adopted by this institution

[[Page 11407]]

and that we're operating under right now with our appropriations bills, 
this is what would put us on a target to not only balance the budget 
but also to pay off the $14 trillion national debt that we are faced 
with right now, that our children and grandchildren are faced with, 
that the future of our economy is faced with right now.
  This is the choice that we have here today. Take care of the debt 
limit. Don't default on our obligations. No one here wants to do that. 
But also cut spending, cap spending, and pass a balanced budget 
amendment to the United States Constitution.
  In 1995, we came within one vote in the United States Senate, after 
the House of Representatives cast 300 bipartisan votes for a balanced 
budget amendment to the United States Constitution, and now we have the 
opportunity to lay the groundwork to do it again, but this time to 
succeed; and we have much, much greater reason to do that because of 
the fact that we are faced with this mountain of red ink that we can 
turn into a bright future for America.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, we have been making a point that this is not your 
garden variety constitutional amendment. This is--
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I will yield on your time, Mr. Goodlatte, and I'm 
happy when you have some time to do that.
  In fact, I think you're going to want an opportunity, because the 
gentleman from Virginia was asked at the hearing on his proposal for a 
constitutional amendment, which was voted out of the committee, to 
identify one budget that would meet the requirements of their version, 
this version of the constitutional amendment, and it was pointed out 
that even the draconian--
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I will not yield on my time.
  The gentleman pointed out that not even the Republican budget that 
passed the House, that ends the Medicare guarantee and is draconian, 
not even that would meet those requirements, that the budget that would 
meet those requirements was that passed by the Republican Study Group, 
which is like the Republican plan on steroids. In fact, a lot of 
Members on the Republican side decided that was way overboard. That 
would require slashes in things like Medicare and Social Security even 
more than the Republican budget that passed the House.
  So that is the one budget that was identified as meeting the 
requirements of that constitutional amendment. This is not a simple 
constitutional amendment. They know that that's a popular idea.

                              {time}  1530

  So they're dressing up their particular version of it in that 
language, talking about 49 out of 50 States have this. Again, two 
devices: One, supermajority; a two-thirds vote required to cut 
corporate tax loopholes when only a simple majority is required to cut 
Medicare and Social Security. We don't think things like that belong in 
the Constitution of the United States.
  I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Budget Committee, 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass).
  Ms. BASS of California. I would like to thank the ranking member of 
the Budget Committee, of which I'm very proud to be a member.
  I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2560. I have to tell you, Madam 
Speaker, that to me it feels like Groundhog Day again here in the House 
of Representatives. ``Duck, dodge, and dismantle'' is brought to the 
floor today for a vote. I have to tell you that I've seen this movie 
before. The storyline rewards the ultrawealthy while punishing working 
families.
  I served as Speaker of the California Assembly while my State 
staggered from budget crisis to budget crisis. We cut spending 
drastically--from $110 billion to $83 billion. But every year, 
California is subject to national ridicule. Why does California have 
this problem? Well, Madam Speaker, we have a balanced budget 
requirement in California. We require a two-thirds vote to raise 
revenue. We can pass tax loopholes and breaks on a simple majority 
vote.
  So how is that working for us in California? Well, I'd like to invite 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to come to California. 
Every year the State is held hostage. Every year my Republican 
colleagues attempt to have a cap that is passed similar to the cap that 
is proposed in this legislation. And every year the State reaches the 
brink of a shutdown. So why on Earth would we want to import the 
disfunction from California to the Nation?
  We should be dealing with the debt ceiling free and clear. We should 
not force a default in order to bring about legislation that is not 
related to the debt ceiling. Our government should not pick winners and 
losers, which is exactly what will happen if we don't raise the debt 
ceiling--whether veterans should be paid, if IRS refunds can be 
honored, if Pell Grants will be available, and if food stamps can be 
distributed. And that's exactly what would happen if the debt limit is 
not raised.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I believe the gentleman said he would 
answer a question if we asked it on our time. The question I have for 
the gentleman is: Would you support any balanced budget amendment? Is 
there any balanced budget amendment that you would support?
  I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I would be happy to entertain a debate.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. It's just a ``yes'' or ``no.''
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Here's the question----
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. It's a simple ``yes'' or ``no.''
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Let me just say this. I would not want to prevent the 
United States from being able to respond in cases of war, in national 
emergency.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Reclaiming my time----
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I'm happy to work with the gentleman on that 
enterprise, but that's very different than what you're talking about.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Reclaiming my time, I will now yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee, Diane Black, who is here as a freshman in 
the House of Representatives.
  Mrs. BLACK. Last week, President Obama got up on his bully pulpit and 
he told the House Republicans it was ``time to eat our peas'' as a part 
of the debt deal. The President said that to us, yet he has not come 
forward with a detailed written plan of his own. All we hear from the 
White House is about job-killing tax increases and a mystical dollar 
amount of cuts with no actual concrete figures on how to achieve it. 
The President has yet to put his plan on the table, even though the 
Congress has been asking for a scorable plan from him for months. In 
fact, he did not even respond to a request from myself and 76 of our 
freshman members who wrote to him and asked him over a month ago to 
come to the table and put pen to paper. And yet, even in the absence of 
a plan from the White House, the President is now threatening to veto a 
cut, cap, and balance before it was even brought to the floor for 
debate.
  And this isn't the first time that the President has rejected a good 
plan put together by the House of Representatives. Not only did the 
House provide a plan in the Path to Prosperity, our House Republican 
budget, but here we are today, about to vote on Cap, Cut, and Balance, 
which represents a solution to the current debt ceiling debate. For 
someone who claims he wants to solve this issue, he has rejected every 
good proposal that has come his way.
  Mr. President, it is time to eat your peas.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for Cut, Cap and Balance.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will once again remind Members,

[[Page 11408]]

very gently, to address their remarks to the Chair and not to others in 
the second person.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I would just remind my colleagues that the President 
has put on the table a balanced approach to reducing the deficit. It 
would cut about $4 trillion from the deficit over the next 10 to 12 
years. It's a balanced approach, again, based on the overall framework 
of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission. It calls for $3 in 
spending cuts for $1 in revenue. It would be raised after 2013 by 
closing special interest tax loopholes and asking the folks at the very 
top to go back to the same rates that were in place during the Clinton 
administration. That's what the President said.
  It's hard to have a conversation when the other party to the 
negotiations takes the position that they will not allow one cent from 
closing a corporate tax loophole to go for the purposes of deficit 
reduction. And now we see them trying to enshrine within the 
Constitution a limitation on our ability to get rid of those special 
interest tax loopholes. They would now require a two-thirds vote. That 
is a Washington lobbyist's dream in the Constitution.
  I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Small 
Business Committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Ranking Member, for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, as we debate how to avert the default crisis, we 
should acknowledge what got us into the current mess. The real reason 
that the United States faces this dilemma dates back to a series of 
irresponsible tax cuts: $2.5 trillion in tax giveaways that were unpaid 
for and went disproportionately to the wealthiest Americans put us on 
this sustainable path.
  We were told tax cuts would provide an economic boost. So what did we 
get for this enormous addition to the deficit? Was our economy 
strengthened? Were new jobs created? The answer is a resounding no. In 
fact, the median income for working families fell by 2.4 percent during 
the first 10 years these tax cuts were in place--while food, housing, 
and other necessities became more expensive. Job creation plummeted to 
33 new jobs a month, the lowest levels since President Hoover. The 
record is clear: Giving tax breaks to the wealthiest without paying for 
it ballooned our deficit but didn't create jobs.
  Now, the proposal before us will not just continue this misguided 
policy of slash and burns, but make it worse. It won't create jobs for 
Americans but will slash services working families rely on. Make no 
mistake, America: This plan begins the dismantling of Medicare and 
Social Security. Meanwhile, subsidies for big oil companies and tax 
breaks for billionaires will be locked in. Most of all, at a time when 
our economy is struggling, this bill will cost hundreds of thousands of 
American jobs. If you like 9 percent unemployment, you will love this 
bill.
  Vote against this bill. Stop playing pure politics. The American 
people deserve nothing less.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. We have 9 percent-plus unemployment, Madam Speaker. 
We've been north of that for a long time. And we're now also saddled 
with more than $14 trillion in debt.
  I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Lankford), who is on the Budget Committee.
  Mr. LANKFORD. We have two distinctly different views. And it's not 
just Republican or Democrat views. One group sees the impending crisis 
as whether we're going to vote to increase the debt ceiling and all the 
crisis is based around August 2. The other group sees the crisis as the 
debt itself.
  How you see the crisis will affect your view of how you choose to 
solve it. If the problem is the uncertainty around just this vote, then 
we do whatever it takes to get past August 2 and the problem is solved.

                              {time}  1540

  If the problem is the debt, when we raise the ceiling, we will face a 
debt approaching $14 trillion with no strategy to pay off that debt. 
Our disaster is not averted. It has been accelerated.
  As we know, just raising the debt limit does not solve the problem, 
as we've done that many times in the past. The economy that we have now 
is as a result of the actions that we've taken in the past to 
continually raise the debt ceiling over and over again with no plan to 
get out of it.
  What if we raise the debt ceiling and agree to the President's oral 
plan that he has given of $14 trillion, whatever that plan may be?
  From the best we understand, Timothy Geithner made the statement in 
June that the plan is $2 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years, $1 
trillion in tax increases and $1 trillion in interest savings, whatever 
that means. If we accomplish that plan and do that and just raise the 
debt ceiling, we will then have a debt in 10 years of $24 trillion with 
still no plan to pay it off. That does not solve the debt crisis. That 
accelerates our debt crisis.
  I have heard all day what a disaster it would be to balance our 
budget. Only in this room is it a disaster to balance the budget. I 
don't think Americans understand what we're talking about. I don't 
think they understand how out of touch we have really become that we 
would argue about balancing the budget. S&P and Moody's have both 
threatened to downgrade our debt, not because we're approaching August 
2, but because we have no credible plan to ever pay this off.
  Cut, Cap, and Balance gives us a credible framework from which, year 
after year, we will work to be able to resolve this debt, pay it down, 
and get back to balance.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, nobody is saying that we shouldn't 
balance our budget. We should balance our budget. In fact, the last 
time it was in balance was during the Clinton administration when they 
took a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, including having in 
place sufficient revenues from the folks at the very top to help cover 
our bills.
  Then what happened in 2001-2003 is that we had back-to-back tax cuts 
that disproportionately benefited the very wealthy, which are a 
significant contributor to why there is now a mismatch between the 
bills we have to pay and the revenue coming in, which is why the 
President of the United States has said, Let's reduce the deficit. 
Let's do it in a balanced way. Let's do $3 in cuts to $1 in revenue.
  I go back to the fact that the Republicans in the House want to 
insert in the Constitution of the United States a provision that would 
require a two-thirds vote to get rid of a special interest tax loophole 
for the purpose of deficit reduction. That kind of makes it difficult 
to have a balanced plan.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Farr).
  Mr. FARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Last night, I was in a town hall meeting in California, and it was 
very clear. It was a bipartisan whole group of people, and what they 
told us very truly is, Stop playing games. They know that the United 
States Congress, since 1940, has voted over 90 times--90 times--to 
raise the debt and never once with a game, never once with 
preconditions of, Oh, we've got to do this. We've got to do that.
  You guys are ruining this country's fiscal future by lighting a fire 
to our fiscal sanity and to our reputation. You want to take down our 
Constitution by requiring a two-thirds vote. You should look before you 
leap. California did this by initiative in 1990. That State has had a 
two-thirds vote locked up. It's impossible to get it out of any fiscal 
crisis, and it has dropped from the sixth wealthiest economy in the 
world.
  Do you want to follow that lead by amending the U.S. Constitution and 
locking in all these tax laws? You're just freezing in every single 
impropriety that's in the Tax Code.
  These people in my town hall meeting said, Stop playing games. They 
said it because they don't think you should put conditionality on it. 
Vote for a clean debt limit. I did. Not one of you did it. Not one 
Republican voted for that. Shame on you. Shame on you for playing fire 
with the United States Constitution. Shame on you on the cut, cap, and 
ruin of the United States.
  Vote ``no.''

[[Page 11409]]




                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will, once again, remind the 
Members that remarks in debate must be addressed to the Chair and not 
to other Members in the second person.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I can hear the chant on the other side 
with regard to the some 90 times the debt ceiling has been raised. 
That's the problem. I can hear the chant on the other side: One more 
time. One more time. One more time.
  That's why we're in this mess. It's that Congresses in the past have 
not heeded the call. They have not said, ``Enough is enough.'' Now, as 
our debt ceiling starts to reach a panic, we're going to get close to 
100 percent of our gross domestic product.
  Enough is enough.
  I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I was on record last night, 
speaking to the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011 and as to what the 
many merits are of this legislation. I think it is a fine bill, and I 
commend its consideration to those on the other side of the aisle; but 
I have to say the debate surrounding Cut, Cap, and Balance has a 
certain Alice in Wonderland character to it. It made me open up the old 
storybook just minutes ago and recall a favorite passage.
  I recall Alice asks, ``Would you tell me which way I ought to go from 
here?'' to which the Cat responds, ``That depends a good deal on where 
you want to get to.''
  Alice replies, ``I don't much care where.'' Then of course the Cat 
says, ``Then it doesn't matter which way you go.''
  I get the sense my good friends on the other side of the aisle don't 
really care where we go from here. They certainly don't care enough to 
put a specific plan forward themselves.
  Unemployment remains at 9.2 percent. Investment in hiring remains 
sluggish all around this country, particularly in places like my 
southern Indiana district. Uncertainty reigns about future taxes, 
future interest rates, future inflation rates all because Washington 
continues to spend way too much money, often on things we don't need, 
but also on important public programs. We need to figure this out. We 
need to figure it out as a country. Our national debt is over $14 
trillion. It's time we come forward with specific plans. Yet the other 
side still has no plan, seemingly no new ideas to offer to this debate, 
no solutions--only poll-tested rhetoric.
  The American people deserve more than this during this critical time. 
Our markets certainly are asking for more than this. Standard & Poor's 
on July 14 said, ``We may lower the long-term rating on the U.S. . . . 
if we conclude that Congress and the administration have not achieved a 
credible solution to the rising U.S. Government debt burden and are not 
likely to achieve one in the foreseeable future.''
  We need a plan. House Republicans have been putting forward plans. We 
put forward a plan already approved to close tax loopholes, something 
we've heard a lot about, in order to help create jobs by making the Tax 
Code flatter, fairer and simpler.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. We need a plan from the President. We need more 
certainty restored to these markets. Let's reject this Alice in 
Wonderland sort of leadership.
  Don't bring me problems, I say to my colleagues. Bring me solutions. 
One solution is the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, and I commend it for 
your consideration.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, the one surefire way that we're going 
to send interest rates up in this country and add to the cost of living 
for every American is if the United States doesn't pay its bills--bills 
for obligations that we've already taken on, which is what this is 
about. Some people, again, think it's a sacrifice to pay bills for 
actions and decisions that they've already supported and voted for. I 
would also point out that the Republican budget that passed the House 
and that would be put into this bill would require us to raise the debt 
ceiling by $8 trillion between now and 2022. So let's not play this 
game with respect to paying our Nation's bills.
  We have to do two things: We have to pay our Nation's bills--every 
family knows they have to pay their bills--and we have to come up with 
a deficit reduction plan.
  The reality is the President has put a plan on the table. The reality 
is our Republican colleagues don't happen to like it because, as I 
said, for every $3 in spending cuts, it would ask us to have $1 in 
revenue from closing these special interest tax loopholes. Again, they 
want to manipulate the Constitution of the United States to protect 
those loopholes, to make it hard to get rid of them.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews).

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, the country has a job crisis. We have the 
same private sector jobs we did in 2001 and 14 percent more people 
looking for work. One of the ways to solve that job crisis, not the 
only way, is to try to keep interest rates stable and low so 
entrepreneurs can invest.
  Today represents a terrible wasted opportunity. On the other side of 
this Capitol this very morning, three Democratic Senators and three 
Republican Senators came together and said they were ready to embrace a 
plan that begins by cutting spending about $3 out of every $4. It cuts 
social programs. It would cut defense, get us out of Iraq and 
Afghanistan. It would take a serious look at Medicare and Social 
Security, which are in many cases contributing to this deficit. And it 
would say that those who benefit from ethanol subsidies and oil company 
tax breaks, the wealthiest people in this country would have to pay a 
little bit more to pay their fair share.
  Something like that is what should be on the floor here this 
afternoon because it can pass, the President can sign it, and it can 
solve the fiscal problems of this country or take a step in the right 
direction. But we don't have something like that. Instead, we have a 
plan that says the following and puts it in the Constitution:
  The guy who runs an ethanol company who gets massive public subsidies 
to make profits is completely left alone. He doesn't have to do 
anything. But the woman who cleans his office at night is going to have 
to pay more to go to college, more for health care for herself, her 
children, and her parents, and more for just about anything else she 
wants in her life.
  There is something wrong with that picture.
  Sacrifice that is equitably and broadly shared is needed in this 
country, but a blind adherence to a special class of Americans who are 
so powerful and so entitled they pay nothing is the wrong way to go. 
And the last thing in the world we ought to do is put that error on the 
Constitution.
  Vote ``no'' on this travesty.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, at any time we would love to see the 
Democrats' plan.
  If you could actually slide it across the table to us, we would 
certainly appreciate it.
  I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Huelskamp).
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. A day like today does not come often, Madam Speaker. 
In only a handful of instances in our Nation's history has our 
Constitution been amended. There can not be a better or more urgent 
time for this House and the Senate and the United States of America to 
pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.
  In a matter of only 2 years, non-defense discretionary spending has 
increased 84 percent and annual deficits have exceeded a trillion 
dollars for 3 straight years. And our debt has grown by nearly $4 
trillion since President Obama took office.
  Let us think about cut, cap, and balance in a larger context. Let's 
think about who is really impacted by the out-of-control spending this 
legislation seeks to end.

[[Page 11410]]

  In my home County of Meade County, Kansas, population 4,575, there 
was one birth announcement this week. On his birthday, that child 
received an IOU for nearly $46,000 to the Federal Government, and 
that's before this President adds more to the country's debt burden.
  Any request to increase the country's debt must be accompanied by a 
clear plan that will reduce the amount of money that a child born in 
Meade County, Kansas, owes to the politicians in Washington, D.C.
  Let's cut spending now, cap spending in the future, and pass a 
balanced budget amendment and make history for all America's children. 
It is the right thing to do.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, as part of the plan the President has 
put on the table that would reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over 
about 10 to 12 years, he has about a trillion dollars in cuts in 
discretionary spending. He does ask the Pentagon, which is the one 
agency that has never passed a GAO audit, to help contribute toward 
resolving that deficit problem. And he also does it without making deep 
cuts in critical investments for our country like education, like 
investment in infrastructure.
  We're going to see in a couple of weeks a bill that may come out of 
the Transportation Committee that dramatically slashes infrastructure 
investments at a time when we have 20 percent unemployment in the 
construction industry.
  So, yes, we have to make these cuts. The President's plan makes the 
cuts. But let's not take a hatchet to education investments. Let's not 
take a hatchet to investing in critical infrastructure, and let's not 
enshrine in the Constitution of the United States a preference for 
cutting Medicare and Social Security over cutting special interest tax 
loopholes. That's what this provision will do.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished vice chairman of 
the Democratic Caucus, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Once again, the public is way ahead of the politicians. 
By nearly three to one, Americans reject this Republican budget scheme. 
In fact, nearly 70 percent of Americans disapprove of how Republicans 
are handling this deficit and default crisis. Even 51 percent of 
Americans who are registered Republicans disapprove of how 
congressional Republicans are handling these negotiations.
  And by wide margins, Americans have sent a very clear signal to us in 
Congress here: Do not cut Medicare to pay for deficits that were caused 
by things like the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy and two unpaid-for wars 
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Today, millions of Americans are living through tight budgets. As 
they sit at the kitchen table, they don't have the luxury of walking 
away from the tough choices as some in Congress have done. They know 
that they must balance today the needs that they have with the 
investments of tomorrow. That's why Americans would see straight 
through this cut-and-paste budget scheme.
  Under this budget scheme, if an American family wanted to buy a 
house, guess what? You better have cash to pay for it, because you 
cannot borrow if you have to live under this budget scheme. No 
mortgages. If you want to send your child to college, you better have 
every single cent you need to send your child to college today to pay 
for the full cost of that tuition. No student loans because you could 
not borrow. So much for the American Dream for the American people.
  Two hundred days into this Congress and not one bill yet from this 
House is enacted to put Americans back to work. And this proposal would 
eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs almost immediately.
  How are we going to get past the next 14 days if today, on this 
floor, we're debating a bill that we know will not pass in the Senate, 
that the President has said that he would veto? And in 14 short days, 
it's not an issue of paying our bills. It's a matter of watching the 
interest rates on people's mortgages skyrocket. It's a matter of 
watching the value of the dollar plummet. And it's a matter of watching 
People's retirement accounts or their 401(k) or IRA all of a sudden 
drop simply because people here in the House of Representatives decided 
to play politics. That's what this is about. And that's why, once 
again, the public is way ahead of the politicians.
  Let's get to work. Let's stop leaving the negotiating table. Let's 
get this done. The President has said he is willing to go with a 
balanced approach. This gets us nowhere. We need to go somewhere, 
because America still has a long way to travel.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. It's always compelling, Mr. Speaker, when they have to 
use a poll to figure out how to do public policymaking. And to suggest 
that there would be no more mortgages is just fantasy. It's amazing 
what gets made up in this discussion instead of a serious discussion 
about balancing our books.
  I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).
  Mr. MULVANEY. I can't tell you how much I long for a discussion of 
ideas, an honest and open discussion of real ideas in this Chamber as 
opposed to talking points. Clearly, we're not going to be getting that 
here this evening.
  What we've heard so far is this bill is going to dismantle Medicare. 
I encourage my colleagues across the aisle to actually read the bill 
before they come in and talk about it. And page 4 specifically says we 
don't cut Medicare in this bill.
  We've heard the President say that Social Security checks might not 
go out on August 3. That's just false. The President has every legal 
authority and the money available to him to send those checks out. If 
he wants to, those checks will go out on August 3.
  We've heard the country will default on our debt if we don't raise 
the debt ceiling. Not true. The authority is there. The money is there. 
We have plenty of money with which to pay the interest on our debt. 
There will be no default on our debt.
  We heard the President say he's going to cut $4 trillion from 
spending. But when pressed on it, he admitted that the spending cuts 
this year were actually $2 billion. Let's put that in perspective. Four 
trillion is $4,000 billion, and the President admits that only $2 
billion of that is this year.

                              {time}  1600

  We've heard today from my colleagues on the other side, Mr. Speaker, 
``duck, dodge, and dismantle,'' which I think is somewhat ironic in 
that it was The Washington Post who actually accused the President in 
those exact same words of ``ducking'' his obligations with his 2012 
budget. Talk about ``dodging'' responsibilities, it's now been 811 days 
since our colleagues in the Senate, controlled by the Democrats, have 
introduced any budget whatsoever. And if we want to talk about 
``dismantling,'' we can talk about replacing Medicare as we know it, 
which is exactly what has happened. The Medicare, as we have known it 
for generations, is gone and has been displaced and dismantled and 
replaced with an independent payment advisory board.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to real debates on real issues. I look 
forward to having conversations in this Chamber that are similar to the 
conversations that take place at every household, every business, every 
county, town, and State in this country about what our priorities are 
and how to spend money responsibly. We are not going to have that 
conversation in this Chamber until we pass Cut, Cap, and Balance.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I think the American families gathering 
around their tables do not have the option of not paying their bills on 
obligations they've already incurred. They can't say, Oh, it's okay to 
not pay my car payment, but I will pay my mortgage. They don't have 
that choice; and, frankly, the United States Government should not be 
saying that we're going to make those choices. We should be paying all 
our bills. And I would remind my colleagues that the reason we have to 
raise the debt ceiling is for obligations that have already been 
incurred, votes that have already been

[[Page 11411]]

taken. For example, two wars, an unfunded prescription drug bill, and 
the reality of two tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the very 
wealthy.
  Now, I would urge my colleagues to read the bill. The section the 
gentleman referred to dealt with the sequestration. There's nothing in 
the bill that says not to cut Medicare or Social Security as part of 
reaching those targets. In fact, they're going to implant in the 
Constitution of the United States a spending level that we have not 
achieved since just after we passed Medicare.
  So what they would do through this is call for deep cuts in Medicare. 
The numbers in this particular statutory provision track the budget 
that the Republicans passed off this floor. The CBO analyzed that. It 
looked at the impact on Medicare beneficiaries, and it's in a letter 
dated April 5, 2011, to the chairman of the Budget Committee, pointing 
out that under the Republican budget plan, Medicare beneficiaries will 
end up paying about 60 percent of the costs compared to 25 to 30 
percent under Medicare today.
  It's interesting that Members of Congress have written into the 
statute provisions that say for Members of Congress, we will have about 
72 to 75 percent of our premiums and costs covered when we're saying to 
seniors on Medicare, let's put in these spending caps that will require 
you to pay a whole lot more.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), a 
distinguished member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman.
  I would also like to thank our ranking member for carrying the flag 
here on our side and combating some of the misinformation that's coming 
out from the other side. And I know the other side certainly feels the 
same way.
  But it's not the President saying all these things are going to 
happen if we do not address this issue. It's every economist on the 
planet, except for a few that may get paid by somebody who wants them 
to come up with another solution or another answer. So to pin this all 
on the President, to say that he's somehow hyping this, I think is not 
exactly true.
  I think what the American people are seeing and what we're seeing now 
is that as we come to the end, as we get close to a solution to this 
problem, the House Republican Caucus says, Wait, we've got a solution. 
Let's change the Constitution. That is not a sincere effort to try to 
address this problem. We have had people negotiating this day in and 
day out. And to come in within days of us destabilizing the markets and 
say, Our solution is to change the Constitution of the United States, I 
think is inadequate.
  I have heard several Members get up and talk about this debt in the 
last couple of years and everything else, completely ignoring the fact 
that our economy collapsed just 2 years ago. Just 2 years ago, the 
economy completely collapsed and collapsed, in part, because of the 
recklessness and the deregulation of Wall Street, taking the cops off 
the beat and letting all of these financial machinations continue to 
happen without any regulation at all. So to put up a placard that says, 
We need to reduce regulations on Wall Street, is a recipe to implement 
the same policies that got us into trouble in the first place.
  And, lastly, I would just like to say I know this is called a 
balanced budget amendment, but the one thing that is not included is 
balance. When you look at the last 30 years, and you look at the 
accumulation of wealth that went from the middle class, wages being 
stagnant over 30 years, and the fact that in the late seventies, the 
top 1 percent of people in the country, the top 1 percent of the 
wealthiest, had 9 percent of real income in the late seventies. The top 
1 percent now has 25 percent of real income in the country. The average 
CEO in the late sixties made $48 for every $1 the worker made. Today 
it's $280.
  To try to put into the Constitution of the United States an 
additional hurdle to try to ask those people who have benefited so 
greatly for being born in America and for generating wealth in America 
and having a court system and a military and transportation system 
available to them to make it harder to ask them to contribute to solve 
some of these problems, I think, is a real problem because at the same 
time you're making it easier, with your GDP number of 18 percent, to 
cut Medicare and to cut those programs that are investments here in the 
United States that keep this great system going.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, all we ask for is a balanced budget 
amendment. All we ask for is for people to live within their means. If 
you listen to the Democrats and what they suggest, just go ahead and 
spend more. Go ahead and keep racking it up on the credit card. There 
are no consequences. There are consequences.
  I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).
  Mr. STUTZMAN. I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding.
  Washington is broke, Mr. Speaker, and the American people know it, 
and they know how to get out of the mess that we're in.
  I would like to reference back to August of 2009. The President 
visited my district in northern Indiana. He was visiting the city of 
Elkhart, Indiana. And during that press conference, he unleashed some 
very interesting statements. And a brave constituent of mine, Scott 
Ferguson, expressed his disappointment with taxes and asked the 
President to ``explain how raising the taxes on anyone during a deep 
recession is going to help with the economy.'' President Obama 
responded, ``Normally you don't raise taxes in a recession, which is 
why we haven't and why, instead, cut taxes.'' So I guess what I would 
say to Scott is, his economics are right. And, Mr. President, I would 
agree with that.
  Today we're hearing from the Democrats that we're paying for the Bush 
tax cuts. Well, I was elected last November but was here for 2 months 
when we voted to extend those Bush tax cuts which now I would refer to 
them as the Obama-Bush tax cuts. So I think it's important that we 
remember who we should be really pointing the finger at, that we should 
be pointing it at Washington. There's plenty of blame to go around.
  I believe we are in a situation right now where we have a broken 
business. It is time for new leadership to come in and evaluate the 
situation. And what Republicans are proposing today is that we're going 
to give ourselves some breathing room with a debt ceiling increase. But 
more importantly, we are going to show the banker that we are not going 
to continue to borrow and spend, but we are going to change our 
spending habits and the way that we operate.
  If we want to kick the can down the road and say we're not concerned 
about changing the way that we've operated, that's what the Democrat 
proposal is, just raise the debt ceiling without any reforms to our 
current budget process.
  So I believe that this new leadership that we are seeing right here 
in this House is saying we've got to stop kicking the can down the 
road. Reform spending. Reform Washington.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, again, the President has said two 
things: Number one, America pays its bills for the obligations that 
it's incurred. Number two, he put a plan on the table to reduce the 
deficit by $4 trillion; again, $3 in spending cuts for $1 of revenue.
  I would point out to the gentleman, the President was very explicit. 
He said that the revenue component would begin in January of 2013; and 
in the meantime, he's actually proposed extending the payroll tax for 
another year during the year 2012 so that consumers would have more 
money to generate more demand in the economy, which is very fragile 
right now.

                              {time}  1610

  But make no mistake: Our long-term challenge is getting the economy 
going again and reducing our deficit, and the economy needs that to 
happen, and it should happen in a balanced way.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) a 
member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. NEAL. I rise in opposition to the ``cut, cap, and balance ruse 
act.'' This

[[Page 11412]]

is an ideologically extreme piece of legislation that will end Medicare 
as we know it, and it preserves tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
  I guess some of our colleagues on the Republican side, when they're 
talking about balancing the budget, they've never heard of America 
paying its bills during world wars. We paid our bills through the Civil 
War. We paid our bills through the Marshall Plan, when America was 
extended as never before.
  The American people want a functional government. They want a 
responsible path forward, and this is not the path that they're 
suggesting.
  A balanced budget constitutional amendment would straitjacket the 
Federal Government of the United States. I wonder how our Tea Party 
friends feel about a Republican Party disturbing the Constitution to 
pay for George Bush's tax cuts. And recall the weapons of mass 
destruction, 31,000 wounded in Iraq? That bill is due and we need to 
pay it. Whether you were for Iraq or against it, they served us 
honorably, and that's what this debate is about.
  The war in Afghanistan, we have to pay that bill whether we were for 
it or against it; $2.3 trillion worth of tax cuts, while simultaneously 
invading two countries, a prescription D Medicare benefit that was 
never paid for.
  Friends everywhere, and I hope every speaker that comes to the 
microphone, including the gentleman from Utah, answers the following 
question: Was the money borrowed along the way in a series of 
supplemental budgets to mask the size of the expenditures they were 
requesting?
  The people that set the fire are now the ones calling the fire 
department. We're in debt because of the positions that they offered 
when Bill Clinton left. When Clinton walked out the door there was a 
$5.7 trillion surplus, five balanced budgets since World War II, and 
Bill Clinton gave us four of them.
  We're here today because of the policies they embraced.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire 
(Mr. Guinta).
  Mr. GUINTA. Mr. Speaker, I find myself in an unfortunate position 
today representing New Hampshire, listening to the conversation and the 
debate that we've had here in this House. This is a hallowed Chamber, a 
place that I am honored to serve, honored to bring a responsibility to 
my constituents from New Hampshire, to, in a dignified way, communicate 
those feelings that are reflected by people in New Hampshire. And I 
have sat here for the better part of 2 hours, being ridiculed because 
my party has the willingness and ability to bring an idea to the floor 
of this House.
  Now, I don't expect everybody, every Member of this institution, to 
agree with the idea, but I would humbly ask that Members of this 
institution recognize that there is an idea on the table. The Cut, Cap, 
and Balance Act is an act not only that I support, but I cosponsored 
because I feel that America is in crisis; that my constituents from New 
Hampshire feel New Hampshire and America is in crisis because of the 
spending levels we find ourselves in. And it wasn't one party or the 
other. We got here holding hands over a long period of time.
  But now we have a responsibility as Americans, not as members of a 
party, but as Americans, to do something about this crisis. I will not 
go home and look my children in the eye and say that their father 
couldn't work with Members of the other side of the aisle to solve 
America's problems.
  So today we are here to vote on Cut, Cap, and Balance, a measure that 
cuts spending immediately, that caps spending back to the 20 percent 
norms and brings a balanced budget amendment approach so the future, 
the solvency of this Nation, can be restored.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I agree with much of what the gentleman 
said, especially that we need to take responsibility for our own 
actions. And that's why nobody should be taking the position that we 
won't pay the bills of the United States of America unless we get a 
plan that's 100 percent our way.
  American families can't say to the mortgage company, you know what? I 
don't like the way you're handling this. I'm not going to pay you, or 
whatever. And so we need to take that same approach.
  Decisions have been made in the past. We're obligated to pay the bill 
for those decisions. Let's not try and duck those responsibilities for 
our own actions.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the 
distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. LEVIN. In this bill the Republicans are trying to repeal the 
second half of the 20th century. We've spent decades trying to knit a 
truly American fabric around a strengthened middle class. It's a fabric 
that holds, at its core, retirement security, health care through 
Medicare and Medicaid, and educational benefits for all through 
programs such as Pell Grants.
  For Republicans, the purpose of this measure is to appeal to their 
base. But in so doing, they are debasing what we have built over the 
last half century. And it could not come at a worse time for this 
country. Republicans say they are dedicated to the markets, but they 
are essentially now saying, financial markets be damned.
  As one analyst put it yesterday, ``The closer we get to this August 
deadline, the more anxious investors become.'' One anonymous Republican 
told Politico yesterday, and I quote, ``I'm embarrassed to be a 
Republican. These guys don't understand capital markets. This isn't 
about who wins an election. This is about whether people are going to 
be able to finance a home.''
  It was 46 years ago this month that President Johnson signed Medicare 
into law. Yet, this measure doubles down on the Ryan budget proposal 
that, itself, would end Medicare. Retirees would see, at the very 
least, a 10 percent cut in their Social Security plans. Nursing home 
care, which makes up half of Medicaid expenditures, would be slashed. 
And that is not alone. The devastating cuts to endless programs, such 
as grants for higher education that have been vital in creating 
opportunity and building a strong American middle class.
  More than 14 million Americans today remain jobless. But instead of 
using their new House majority to pursue a jobs agenda, it has come to 
this. Nearly 7 months after they assumed the majority, instead of 
promoting growth, encouraging job creation, and reinforcing the 
economic recovery, Republicans have been bringing about uncertainty.
  We must, indeed, confront the deficit, but not as the Republicans now 
propose, tearing apart what has helped create the fabric of the 
American middle class.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, the President submitted a budget, a budget 
that never balances. In fact, it doubles and triples the debt. It went 
to the United States Senate, and 97-0--97-0--not one Democrat voted in 
favor of that.
  Has the President submitted any sort of adjustment or amendment to 
that? No, he has not. The reality is this President has no plan. We 
have a plan. We can solve the underlying problem and take care of 
paying our bills on August 2.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), 
a member of the Budget Committee.

                              {time}  1620

  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this vote stands as a defining moment in this crisis. 
Every rating agency has warned that an increase in the debt limit 
without a credible plan to balance the budget will do great damage to 
our Nation's credit. And worse, fiscal experts warn that without such a 
plan we risk a sovereign debt crisis within the next 2 years.
  This measure gives the President everything he has asked for--the 
$2.4 trillion debt increase to pay for the bills that he and the 
Congress have recklessly racked up. But it also calls for a 
constitutionally enforceable workout plan to place our Nation back on 
the course to fiscal solvency, the centerpiece of which is a balanced 
budget amendment that has been proposed in

[[Page 11413]]

one form or another since the birth of our Constitution and that 49 
States have adopted.
  Now, the gentleman from Maryland reminds us that only a few of those 
49 States have both a balanced budget requirement and a two-thirds vote 
for tax increases. My home State of California happens to be one of 
them. California's deficits, as bad as they are, have been 
proportionally roughly half the size of those that the Federal 
Government has run up in the same period.
  These budget protections work--maybe not perfectly, but they do work. 
And I might add that when California also had a real spending limit, as 
this measure calls for, California enjoyed an era of balanced budgets, 
prudent reserves, no tax increases, and steady economic growth.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The time of the gentleman 
from Utah has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman from Maryland.
  We face two immediate challenges. The first is, will we pay our 
bills? That's the whole issue of raising the debt limit. America pays 
its bills, it's as simple as that. If we owe veterans who served this 
country their benefits, they're going to get paid. If we went to a war 
and didn't pay for it and fund it when we went, we have to pay that 
bill when it becomes due. That is the question. And by the way, 
Republican iconic figure, Ronald Reagan, who was familiar with tax and 
budget fights, was the one who said he would never make the debt 
ceiling, America's full faith and credit, a hostage to a point of view, 
and did the right thing to pay those bills.
  The second issue that we face--and I acknowledge my Republican 
colleagues for their focus on this--is a long-term fiscal plan. The 
bill that we have brought before the floor, a balanced budget 
amendment, raises the question: Is it an effective tool, or is the 
better approach a balanced approach to revenues and to spending?
  The State of Vermont does not have a balanced budget amendment, yet 
in Vermont we pay our bills and we balance our budget. We do it, number 
one, by working together. And one of the points that the rating 
agencies have made is the apprehension here is not so much our ability 
to pay our bills, it's our ability to work together. Working together 
requires that we have a balance of cuts, look at that budget, where can 
we save money? But it also requires that we have a balance of revenues 
because part of the goal here--again, of a confident country--is to 
grow our economy. That requires investment in infrastructure, in 
education, in new industries. And if we are going to be successful, 
this cannot be just cuts. It has to be balanced with investments that 
will grow this economy, grow jobs, bring that unemployment rate down. 
We can do it together.
  I see the gentleman from South Carolina included in his approach 
cutting the Pentagon. That has to be on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Garrett) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. West).
  Mr. WEST. I do need to correct my colleague from Vermont: I'm not 
from South Carolina; I'm from Florida, but that's okay. I'm the guy 
with hair.
  I would like to start off by saying this very simply, I rise in 
support of H.R. 2560 because when I look back a few years, 2007 to 
2011, $8.67 trillion, $10.4 trillion, and now we're at about $14.5 
trillion in debt. From 2009 to 2011, $1.42 trillion, $1.29 trillion, 
and an estimated $1.65 trillion in deficits.
  The President's budget for fiscal year 2012, 0-97; 800-plus days the 
Senate Democrats have not passed a budget; $1 trillion of wasteful 
spending of the stimulus. We still have unemployment at 9.2 percent 
nationally, 16.2 percent in the black community; and 13 percent of my 
brothers and sisters who are coming back from combat zones are 
unemployed. Our debt to GDP ratio is about 70 percent. Our government 
spending to GDP ratio is 24.4 percent; 47 percent of our debt is owned 
by foreign nations, 27 percent with China.
  We are going in the wrong direction. I stand in support of H.R. 2560 
because this is insanity, and we cannot continue to do the same thing 
expecting different results.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I would again remind my colleagues that 
the last time we were running a budget surplus was during the years of 
the Clinton administration. During that period of time our spending was 
at a level that was higher than the limitation in here, and we were 
paying our obligations. What this would do would create an anti-
majoritarian, anti-democratic provision in the Constitution that says 
you can't balance your budget at 19 percent of GDP, even if that's the 
will of the American people, even if it's how we did it back during the 
Clinton administration.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), a member of the Budget Committee.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
H.R. 2560, which attempts to manipulate the Constitution in order to 
impose a Ryan budget plan on steroids.
  This is yet another thinly veiled attempt by our colleagues across 
the aisle to end Medicare as we know it while refusing to even consider 
ending ill-advised tax breaks for millionaires.
  It is crucial that the American people understand that this plan 
would require even deeper cuts than under the Ryan Republican plan we 
saw in April. This means deeper cuts to investments in education, clean 
energy, and increased costs for our seniors.
  President Obama has vowed to veto this bill, which ends the Medicare 
guarantee. And, incredulously, the gentleman from Florida, who 
represents thousands of Medicare beneficiaries, as do I, is supportive 
of this plan that would increase costs for Medicare beneficiaries, 
unbelievable from a Member from south Florida. It slashes Medicaid and 
critical investments essential to winning the future in favor of 
protecting tax breaks for Big Oil, millionaires and companies who ship 
American jobs overseas.
  Achieving a solution to America's fiscal challenges is absolutely an 
economic necessity, but the only way to achieve a real solution is 
through shared sacrifice. We can't ask our seniors, working Americans, 
and students to bear the burden of our deficits when we're asking 
nothing of corporations, special interests, and the wealthiest few. 
Incredibly, our friends across the aisle won't even put that on the 
table.
  The nonpartisan CBO, Congressional Budget Office, has said that the 
number one policy decision that brought us to the need to prevent the 
Nation from defaulting on our debt for the first time in history were 
the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that disproportionately benefited 
the wealthiest Americans. Yet here we are again rewarding the most 
privileged at the expense of our working families and our seniors, the 
bedrock of our society.
  Cut, cap, and balance may make for a great sound bite, but it would 
have a devastating impact on our economy and American seniors. It is 
clearly more like ``duck, dodge, and dismantle.'' For the sake of our 
economy, it is essential that we move beyond politics as usual and take 
action to reduce our Nation's deficit and get our fiscal house in 
order.
  On behalf of the 102,000 Medicare beneficiaries in my home district 
and on behalf of all middle class Americans, I urge my colleagues to 
join me in opposition to this reckless bill and pass a balanced plan 
that engages us all in shared sacrifice to solve our Nation's debt 
crisis.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  I rise today in support of a plan, an actual plan, to address our 
fiscal crisis, to cut, cap and balance.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, with our debt now topping $14 trillion, we have no 
other choice but to start sending clear, immediate signals to the 
marketplace and the world that we are serious about spending and debt 
reform. And to show that we are serious, we need to put skin in the 
game in the form of immediate spending cuts today, caps on

[[Page 11414]]

spending that occurs tomorrow, and a balanced budget amendment to 
protect us from spending too much in the future.
  You know, I find it interesting that the proponents of a debt limit 
increase without any substantial reforms point to the so-called 
financial meltdown-type scenarios of failing to raise the debt limit by 
August 2. We hear that interest rates for U.S. Treasuries would 
skyrocket, causing the cost of servicing current debt to increase, 
which in turn would require more borrowing and disastrous consequences 
for the Federal budget and also the global economy.

                              {time}  1630

  But you know what the other side fails to mention in any of these 
scenarios is what would happen if we don't get spending under control. 
The challenge is clear. What are the solutions, though, to it?
  House Republicans today are demonstrating that we are committed to 
confronting our country's addiction to spending and debt with bold and 
decisive action and with a plan in place. The cut, cap, and balance 
plan is not only the right prescription to address our fiscal crisis, 
it is the only plan on the table that makes structural changes to right 
our fiscal ship. In fact, it is the only plan in place.
  Nobody wants to raise the debt ceiling, but if it's going to be 
raised, we should use it as an opportunity to finally implement 
comprehensive reform measures to ensure that we never find ourselves in 
this situation again; because if we do nothing, we put off the tough 
decision for another day, the only one to blame is ourselves. This is 
our moment. This is our time to act.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, it has been very interesting listening to 
this debate so far. I want to add a couple of points to it.
  First of all, I would note for the record that this government is 
spending $7 million a minute. We are borrowing $3 million a minute of 
that $7 million. This is money that most Americans will never see in a 
lifetime, and we are spending that much in a minute.
  Now, as I listened to the debate so far, I couldn't help but wonder, 
Mr. Speaker, what is this President, what are the Democrats so very 
scared of? Why are they scared of letting a balanced budget amendment 
go to the people of this country? Let's be clear, voting for this bill 
starts a balanced budget amendment process, not the implementation of 
the amendment. So why are they so scared of the people of this country?
  Well, if you believe that government, if you believe that elites can 
make better decisions for the people of this country than the people 
can, if you believe that they should be controlling the people's money, 
their property, better than the people can, well, no wonder they are 
scared. Because overwhelmingly, the people of this country would say to 
us exactly what they say around the kitchen table, and that is we have 
to live within our means.
  My second point, Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I can tell 
in the history of this Republic that this kind of debt has been racked 
up with no intention and no plan to pay it back. This is the first 
time. And, quite frankly, I don't know of anything more piggish or un-
American than racking up a bill to be passed on to our best asset, our 
future--our kids--just so we can have more on our plate now, just so 
that we can have more largess, just so we can be more selfish in the 
here and now and kick that can down the road and let our kids pay for 
it.
  Since when has that become part of American exceptionalism? Since 
when has that attitude become part of this country?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I know that the gentleman is new to the 
body, but there were lots of decisions made over the past years for 
which the bills are coming due now. For example, in 2005 when our 
Republican colleagues headed up the House, we passed a prescription 
drug add-on to Medicare which was not funded, not one penny. It was all 
put on the credit card. Two wars were put on the credit card; and 
again, tax cuts in 2001, 2003 that disproportionately benefited the 
very wealthy that created this gap.
  So I agree with the gentleman. It is time, sir, to take 
responsibility for our actions. And it is interesting to hear some 
folks say that it is a sacrifice for us to have to pay bills for 
decisions that were made in the past.
  Now, yes, we need to get the deficit under control. And again, the 
President of the United States has put on the table a balanced approach 
over 10 years, $3 of spending cuts to $1 of revenue. And again, our 
Republican colleagues have walked away from the table because they 
don't want to raise one penny of revenue from closing corporate tax 
loopholes.
  Just to be clear, the President's plan would extend middle class tax 
cuts beyond 2013. The President's plan would say let's extend the 
payroll tax cut for 2012. But he says let's get serious about our 
deficit and let's do it in a balanced way with shared responsibility.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Lewis), a member of the Ways and Means Committee who knows a lot about 
the importance of shared responsibility.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the American people are sick and 
tired of Washington petty games. People's lives, their homes, their 
retirement, their health care are hanging in the balance. The American 
people are good, strong, resilient people. They are willing to 
sacrifice to get our country back on track. But they will not be played 
as fools. Middle class Americans know they are not getting a fair 
shake.
  This bill protects tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, while the 
middle class pay more than their fair share and watch their retirement 
savings disappear. The American people know that there is a deliberate, 
systematic attempt to destroy Medicare, to damage Medicaid, and 
threaten Social Security. This is ducking, dodging, and destroying. If 
it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be 
a duck.
  The American people want one thing. They want jobs, good jobs, jobs 
that pay the bills, give people back their dignity, and get people back 
on track with the American Dream. Our Nation deserves nothing less.
  But this bill would destroy those hopes and those dreams. It will 
plunge our economy back into a deep recession. It will mean more lost 
jobs, more lost homes, and seniors living in poverty without health 
care and basic necessities. It will mean children going hungry, and it 
will keep smart young people from going off to college.
  This bill will sell the very soul of our Nation. We, as Americans, 
are better than this. We are more compassionate than this. We know 
better.
  It is easier to destroy than it is to build. Another generation of 
leaders did more with less; they built people up. We cannot turn back.
  Vote ``no'' on this bill. Let's go back to the table and work on a 
compromise that prevents default, preserves our moral obligation to our 
seniors, and puts America back on the road to greatness.
  Mr. GARRETT. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Michigan (Mrs. 
Miller), who is concerned not only about the soul of the Nation today 
but the soul of the Nation for our posterity as well, who is not 
willing to duck the hard fiscal issues.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, after years, literally years, 
of growing government and increasing spending beyond all reason, it is 
now long past time to bring fiscal sanity to Washington and to put 
America on a path to prosperity.
  Mr. Speaker, our national debt has increased. Today it exceeds $14 
trillion. Our debt has increased by almost $4 trillion, which is more 
than $120 billion a month in new debt just since President Obama has 
been in office. That is $120 billion each and every month with this new 
President.
  Government has grown so large that it now spends nearly 25 percent of 
our annual economic output, a level not seen since World War II. That 
has crowded out private sector growth and new jobs and opportunities 
that Americans need and are demanding.

[[Page 11415]]

  This plan puts forward real cuts to spending; no smoke, no mirrors. 
It enforces discipline with real caps on spending and a balanced budget 
amendment. And it gives the President the increase in the debt ceiling 
he is seeking if the balanced budget amendment is sent to the States.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
commonsense reform.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, many Members of recent sessions of Congress 
have not been known as practitioners of fiscal discipline.

                              {time}  1640

  Balanced budget amendment philosophy has well served thousands of 
governmental entities and hundreds of thousands of households. Now is 
the time for the Congress to embrace a balanced budget amendment which 
will then set us upon a course where fiscal discipline is not merely an 
option but a necessity. Only then, Mr. Speaker, will the Congress 
balance its own budget.
  I urge support of this worthwhile and commonsense piece of 
legislation and would like to see it enacted, although that probably 
will not be the conclusion.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARRETT. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Olson).
  Mr. OLSON. I thank my colleague from New Jersey for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, there are two reasons why this is the most important 
vote of my 2\1/2\ years in Congress: Their names are Kate and Grant 
Olson. They are my children. Kate is 14 and Grant is 11. My wife, 
Nancy, and I uprooted them from the only home that they knew and moved 
back to my home State of Texas to run for Congress because we were 
worried that the ever-increasing Federal debt was the greatest threat 
to their future.
  Today, for the first time in my children's young lives, the House of 
Representatives is passing game-changing legislation that puts our 
Nation on a path to fiscal sanity and ensures that my Kate, my Grant, 
your Kates and your Grants, have better lives than we did.
  I urge my colleagues to make a downpayment on the future of America's 
youth and vote in support of H.R. 2560.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I would just ask my Republican colleagues to consider 
why they want to write a provision in the Constitution of the United 
States that would make it harder to shut down a special interest tax 
loophole for the purpose of reducing the deficit for our children and 
grandchildren.
  I now yield 4 minutes to our very distinguished Democratic whip and 
my colleague from the State of Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend, the ranking member of the Budget 
Committee, Mr. Van Hollen, for yielding.
  The American public are rightfully very distressed with the Congress 
of the United States. They're distressed that at a time of great 
challenge and great risk, that we fiddle while the debt threatens to 
burn us, to place our country in the position of being adjudged 
uncreditworthy. That is not worthy of this Congress or any one of us 
that serves in this Congress.
  We have 14 days, according to the Secretary Treasurer, until such 
time as America will be unable to pay its obligations, whether to 
foreigners or to people in this country. That is not a situation that 
will be looked at positively by the financial sector or by any one of 
our constituents whose ability to save, to have a 401(k) that is 
stable, to purchase an automobile or a refrigerator or send their kid 
to college will be put at risk because of increased interest rates. Not 
one of us will be held harmless if this Congress fails to do its duty.
  Ladies and gentlemen, we have had a number of efforts to get us to 
where we needed to be to get back to fiscal responsibility. I'm amused 
when I hear our new Members talk about the fiscal irresponsibility, 
because I've served here long enough to know that the two Presidents 
under whom the debt was raised most were Ronald Reagan, a 186 percent 
increase from the $985 billion total debt when Ronald Reagan took 
office to over $2.8 trillion, and George Bush II, who increased the 
national debt 86 percent. Did he do it alone? Of course not. Did we all 
do it, Republicans and Democrats? Yes.
  Democrats believe that the debt was raised because we bought things 
on the Republican watch that were not paid for. That's indisputable. 
You cannot argue that. Those are the facts. The fact is, did we do the 
same in the Obama administration? We did. Why? Because we had to 
respond to the deepest recession we have seen. We didn't create enough 
jobs. In fact, we lost jobs.
  So we bring a bill to the floor some weeks ago to address the 
creditworthiness of the United States of America, and the chairman of 
the Ways and Means Committee said, We offer this bill to fail. Not to 
solve the problem. To fail.
  Now we bring a bill to the floor of the House of Representatives this 
day, 14 days before the debt limit is reached and America might default 
for the first time in history. This bill was written sometime late 
Friday or perhaps Saturday. How many of you said, Have you read the 
bill? How many hours have you taken to consider this bill?
  I've read the bill, too, Paul. I guarantee you there is not an 
American who's not on the Budget Committee that reads this bill knows 
what impact it has, and the chairman of the Budget Committee is shaking 
his head and agreeing with me. The fact of the matter is you haven't 
had one second of hearing on this, there was no markup on this bill, 
and it has significant consequences.
  Let me tell you, my friends on the other side of the aisle, I'm one 
of those who stands in this well who voted for the balanced budget 
amendment in 1995.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. HOYER. I voted because I believed we needed to get to fiscal 
responsibility, and in fact we did, and we balanced the budget 4 years 
in a row, and George Bush inherited a $5.6 trillion projected surplus. 
Not debt. Not deficit. And 22 million jobs having been created before 
he took office. Eight years later, we had increased the debt by $5 
trillion.
  I'm not going to vote for the balanced budget amendment, and I urge 
my colleagues to reject this bill, which has no chance of passage, and 
we need to stop fiddling. We need to do our work and make sure America 
can pay its debts, because if it can't, every one of our constituents 
will lose and our country will lose.
  Our oath of office was to preserve and protect. Defeat this ill-
advised, ill-timed, unconsidered piece of legislation and let us move 
to fiscal responsibility in a way that will bring us all together in a 
bipartisan way, as Bowles-Simpson tried to do, as Biden tried to do, 
and as, frankly, Mr. Boehner and the President tried to do. Let's get 
to that objective. The country deserves it.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
  Mr. GARRETT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Graves), who recognizes that if the balanced budget amendment was 
appropriate back in 1995, with debt now reaching over $14 trillion 
today, how much more so is it relevant to pass today.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Here we are. We are at the moment of choosing, and we just heard from 
the former leader of the former majority party that we need to oppose 
this.
  But to those in the gallery here today, to those watching on camera, 
just in a few hours you will get the opportunity to see behind me on 
this board every name of every Member of Congress and how they vote. 
They will make a choice. They will take their

[[Page 11416]]

voting card, of which you've entrusted us with, and they will make a 
decision: this Nation should balance its budget or not.
  This isn't so much about cut, cap, balance. This is about prosperity 
or continued high unemployment. That would be green for prosperity, red 
for high unemployment. This is about accountability and constraints, 
green, or Washington run wild. Again, that would be the red button and 
the status quo.

                              {time}  1650

  This is about sustainability of our future or continued uncertainty 
as we've seen thus far. Or, better yet, this is about standing on our 
own. The green button, independence of this great Nation. Or, continued 
and increasing bondage of foreign nations and our indebtedness. Again, 
the red button.
  Members of Congress, this is your time of choosing. We've heard so 
many names invoked here today. Former Presidents, Members of Congress, 
other Congresses. But, guess what? This is your time. This is your 
choice. This is your voting card. What will you choose: A prosperous 
future for this Nation or continue the status quo?
  I urge Members, let's choose a great, prosperous future for this 
Nation. America deserves it.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are again reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair. It is inappropriate to address occupants of the 
gallery and also to address others in the second person.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. This is a time for choosing. We have to reduce our 
deficit. We have to get the budget in the balance. The question is, how 
we do this? And we believe that it is a corruption of the Constitution 
to write into the Constitution itself a provision that says a majority 
vote can cut Medicare and Social Security but you need a two-thirds 
undemocratic vote to close a corporate tax loophole for the purpose of 
reducing the deficit.
  I yield 1 minute to gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. First, let me thank the gentleman for yielding and for his 
outstanding leadership.
  I rise in strong opposition to what has been appropriately labeled as 
the ``duck, dodge, and dismantle'' budget bill. The Republicans duck 
making the hard choices by requiring us to actually amend our 
Constitution before we can act to avoid default. The end result: 
America fails to pay its bills on time.
  The Republicans dodge facing the real challenge by continuing tax 
breaks for the super wealthy and Big Oil, funding two wars, and other 
Republican interests. And the Republicans want to dismantle our 
Nation's economic security for seniors, the disabled, and the poor by 
cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Making heartless cuts 
on the backs of the most vulnerable will not balance the budget. And 
it's morally wrong.
  Now, with only 14 days left, Republicans are pushing forward 
legislation that will guarantee a default and will kill hundreds of 
thousands of jobs. This ``duck, dodge, and dismantle'' bill would end 
the social safety net, kill jobs, and set our Nation back rather than 
move it forward. I urge my colleagues to oppose this job-killing bill 
that would end up being written in stone in our Constitution. It turns 
the American Dream into a nightmare.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, just to remind the other side of the aisle 
with regard to the radical plan that we talked about here with regard 
to changing or amending the Constitution, it was Thomas Jefferson who 
said, in a letter to John Taylor, I wish that it were possible to 
obtain just a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing 
to depend on that alone, that our government would return to the 
genuine principles of the Constitution. And he was speaking, of course, 
of what we're doing here today, what Thomas Jefferson wished that we 
had done over 200 years ago: a balanced budget amendment.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. 
McMorris Rodgers).
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. I rise in strong support of H.R. 2560 to 
address our national debt.
  In 2006 then-Senator Barack Obama voted against raising the debt 
ceiling. He said at that time that the rising national debt was a 
``sign of leadership failure.'' Today, President Barack Obama is asking 
Congress to raise the national debt $2.4 trillion, largely to fund many 
of the programs that he's had passed in the last couple of years. And 
to put that into perspective, that amounts to $20,000 for every 
American family. Congress is being asked to add $20,000 in debt burden 
to every American family. And we owe it to them before we raise that 
debt to make sure we are cutting up the credit cards and that we are 
not going to continue to spend beyond our means.
  House Republicans are committed to getting our fiscal house in order. 
House Republicans are committed to protecting our excellent credit 
rating. It is the national debt that threatens our credit rating. The 
bill before us today, Cut, Cap, and Balance, is a credible plan to 
address this situation. It will cut spending immediately, it will enact 
spending caps, and it will require the passage of a balanced budget 
amendment. Forty-nine out of 50 States balance their budgets.
  The President's spend, borrow, and bail out policies have clearly 
failed. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Let's help 
America's economy today and let's keep the American Dream alive for 
many years to come.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I would hazard a guess that Thomas Jefferson would 
not want to write into the Constitution of the United States anti-
democratic provisions that said you need two-thirds in order to close 
special interest tax loopholes for the purpose of deficit reduction or 
to say that we're going to decide now, for all time, that we have to 
balance our budget at 18 percent of GDP rather than some other number 
that may be the will of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARRETT. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Kline).
  Mr. KLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2560, the Cut, 
Cap, and Balance Act. The severity of our Nation's fiscal crisis cannot 
be overstated. More than 14 million Americans are looking for work. 
Meanwhile, Federal spending continues at an unprecedented pace, with an 
average of $4 billion added to our country's debt every day. We need to 
encourage economic growth and investment. Instead, leaders on the other 
side of the aisle are pushing more reckless policies, more redtape, and 
more taxes to pay for their irresponsible spending spree, leaving job 
creators frozen by uncertainty and fear, and risking our future 
prosperity.
  At a recent roundtable in Minnesota, a small business owner told me, 
The government is out of control. It's too big, and I don't like it. 
Well, I don't like it either, and it's costing our country jobs. It's 
time for Washington to do what's right. We need to make the tough 
choices necessary to get our Nation's fiscal house in order. No one 
said it would be easy, but it certainly is necessary.
  The legislation before us today will end unsustainable spending and 
put this Nation back on a fiscally responsible path. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GARRETT. Just to the gentleman from the other side of the aisle 
who made the point regarding what sort of amendment that Thomas 
Jefferson may have been looking for today, whether he actually would be 
looking for one, what we call a supermajority, what have you, in point 
of fact I believe Jefferson would be going even further than what we 
are doing here today and simply say that Congress should not have the 
ability to borrow at all. The amendment that we are putting forward 
would actually give us greater flexibility with that in time of 
emergency, in time of war, and Congress can

[[Page 11417]]

take it upon themselves to borrow. Jefferson understood that first and 
foremost that Congress, just like the businesses and families at the 
time, needed to live within their means. And he saw it as immoral, 
basically, to take the responsibilities of this generation and place 
them on future generations.
  At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Womack).
  Mr. WOMACK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I've had the privilege of serving Arkansas' Third 
District now for a little more than 6 months in this Congress. And I 
can still hear the voices of those people who sent me here. Their 
voices said, Steve, you've got to go to Washington and you've got to 
cut spending. You've got to empower the private sector. You've got to 
reduce the size of government. You've got to get to Washington and help 
put us back to work. Those same conversations at home at the kitchen 
table, people discussing their personal budgets, saying to me that, I 
have to live within my means, why doesn't Washington?
  Mr. Speaker, to each of these comments I say, we have an answer. It's 
a trifecta, if you will. It's called Cut, Cap, and Balance.
  Mr. Speaker, I realize I've only been here a short time, but I know 
full well how Washington works. And I know that this concept is foreign 
to the many people who have been here down through the years. But if 
you look around and take an objective view, you will know that the only 
way to bring legitimate control to the irresponsible fiscal behavior of 
Washington, D.C., the only way to restore the integrity of this 
Chamber, to restore the confidence in the people we serve, is to make 
it constitutional, a balanced budget amendment.

                              {time}  1700

  No gimmicks, Mr. Speaker. No hollow promises. Simple language that 
rank-and-file Americans can wrap their heads around: a constitutional 
requirement for this country to balance its books.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GARRETT. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding.
  During his 8 years as President, President Bush increased the 
national debt $3 trillion. We spent too much money. But not to be 
outdone, in a 3-year period of time, President Obama has increased the 
national debt $5 trillion--a 56 percent increase. Then he turns around 
and lectures middle class American families, struggling families, to 
eat their peas. He offers no plan, no answers--nothing but a phoney 
budget that even failed in the Democrat-controlled Senate 97-0. Harry 
Reid voted against his budget.
  The President owns this economy, not Haliburton, not Cheney, not 
George Bush. It's the President. He owns the skyrocketing debt. He owns 
the 15 million unemployed. He owns the failed stimulus plan. President 
Obama owns the extended Bush tax cuts because it was he who extended 
them 2 years. Now, in our time of great fiscal crisis, when America 
needs leadership, he is absent.
  The Republicans in the House are offering a plan, and I understand 
the Democrats don't like it. That's good, because sometimes the two 
parties have to battle it out, and you get a better product from it, 
but you can't do it when the Democrats aren't offering a plan. We will 
pass this plan today, and I hope Harry Reid and the Democrats will pass 
a plan and that we can get together. I hope the President decides to 
offer a plan. Maybe we can look at his, and maybe out of the three 
possibilities, we can do what's best for the American people, but we 
can't do it unless the President decides to engage and take on the role 
of leader.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, once again, the President had a plan to 
reduce the deficit by about $4 trillion over 10 years--$3 in cuts, $1 
in revenue. Our Republican colleagues walked away from the table 
because they didn't want $1 of deficit reduction from closing special 
interest tax loopholes.
  With that, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished member of the 
Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle would 
not be here today if President Jefferson had not borrowed to finance 
the Louisiana Purchase.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill promises all the fun of a constitutional 
amendment without actually amending the Constitution. It simply says 
that the United States should default on our debts and destroy our 
economy if we don't amend the Constitution.
  If we default on our debts, we will do more damage to our economy 
than large deficits, tax increases and draconian cuts combined. Right 
now, we enjoy very low interest rates because we are still the most 
stable, reliable and wealthy country in the world.
  If the markets get the idea that we are too dysfunctional to pay our 
debts, even though we are certainly wealthy enough to do so, nothing 
else will matter. Interest rates will climb. Homeowners and businesses 
will be pushed out of the credit market. The stock market will crash.
  Never before in the history of this country has anyone been 
irresponsible enough to play chicken with our full faith and credit. 
Never.
  We know how to balance the budget, because we've done it before. In 
the not-too-distant past, we managed, in working with President 
Clinton, not only to balance the budget but to run surpluses and begin 
paying down the debt. Unfortunately, President Bush and a Republican 
Congress managed to turn record surpluses into record deficits in 
record time.
  Rather than admit to serious Republican economic mismanagement and 
finding responsible solutions, we get this dusted-off quack cure from 
the past. The so-called balanced budget amendment requires a balanced 
budget much sooner than does the Republican budget that the House 
recently passed, the one that abolishes Medicare and turns Medicaid 
into a block grant.
  I asked the sponsor of the balanced budget amendment, the gentleman 
from Virginia, how he thought this could be done. He answered that the 
Republican Study Committee budget, which is even more radical than the 
Ryan budget, would be in balance in just 9 years. That's what we're 
really voting for today--an accelerated version of the Republican Study 
Committee budget. Anyone voting for this should be prepared to go home 
and explain that vote, including Republican members who voted against 
their study committee budget.
  Economists have long known that, in good times, you should balance 
the budget and pay down the debt but that, in times of recession, when 
tax revenues plummet and the economy contracts, you have to spend money 
on unemployment insurance and on putting people back to work. You must 
run a deficit to get the economy going again. The balanced budget 
amendment would force us to do the exact opposite and turn every 
recession into a depression.
  This constitutional amendment does a whole lot more than require a 
balanced budget. Many of its provisions simply cement into the 
Constitution the policy preferences of the current majority and bind 
our children and grandchildren to those preferences.
  The two-thirds requirement, for example, to increase revenues would 
have the perverse effect of allowing special interest tax loopholes to 
be slipped into law with a majority vote, but would require a 
supermajority to repeal them. This is not just antithetical to a 
balanced budget; it would also cement the most corrupt aspects of our 
Tax Code into the Constitution.
  The amendment would also require a two-thirds vote for any budget 
that exceeds 18 percent of GDP. The CBO tells us: ``Outlays have 
averaged close to 21 percent of GDP over the past 40 years.'' Federal 
outlays have not dropped below 18 percent since 1966--that is, since 
the enactment of Medicare.
  Regardless of what other parts of this bill may say, there is no way 
to meet these restrictions without destroying

[[Page 11418]]

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, veterans' programs, and military 
preparedness. That's just arithmetic, and no amount of rhetoric will 
change it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.
  Mr. NADLER. The real problem is that tax revenues have declined from 
20\1/2\ percent of GDP in 2000 to 14\1/2\ percent of GDP because we no 
longer tax the millionaires, the billionaires and the large 
corporations the way we used to.
  Let's start doing that, and we can have a balanced budget without 
phoney constitutional amendments which promise balanced budgets, 
without showing how, but that do protect the millionaires from paying 
their fair share.
  Mr. GARRETT. We are also reminded that Jefferson said in 1816 that he 
sincerely believed that the principle of spending money today that we 
don't have, to be paid for by posterity, is but swindling future 
generations--something this Republican Party does not wish to do.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of 
H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act.
  Last November, the American people sent a clear and resounding 
message to cut up the Nation's credit card and to stop spending money 
we don't have. Today, we are doing that.
  This act makes immediate spending cuts and forces the Federal 
Government to do what Americans all over this country are doing: living 
within their means. This legislation also begins to cap Federal 
Government spending at levels that are historically sustainable to 
ensure vibrant economic growth. Finally, this measure forces the 
Federal Government to do what to most Americans is simply plain common 
sense: to spend only the amount of money that you have.
  A balanced budget amendment is long overdue.
  Republicans have heard the American people's call to action to reduce 
spending, and that is why I strongly support this measure. I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GARRETT. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Roe).
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I rise today in support of the Cut, Cap, and 
Balance Act because American families deserve to have a government that 
lives within its means, just like they do.
  Our national debt has grown in excess of $14 trillion--that's more 
than $46,000 for every man, woman and child in this country--and we 
continue to borrow, roughly, 40 cents of every dollar we spend. This is 
a path to financial ruin that will leave the next generation with a 
less prosperous America than the one we inherited.
  Now, I find it astonishing on the House floor that balancing our 
budget would have a devastating effect on our economy. It's hard to 
believe, but it has been said.
  The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act keeps the promise we made to the 
American people to cut spending while also granting the President's 
request for a debt limit increase. By cutting spending $111 billion the 
first year alone, by capping future spending and by laying the 
groundwork for a balanced budget amendment, this package will save $5.8 
trillion over the next 10 years. This bill is nothing more than good 
old-fashioned common sense, and I urge my colleagues to support this.

                              {time}  1710

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran) will control the time on the minority side.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MORAN. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. GARRETT. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. I rise in support of Cut, Cap and Balance.
  If you look at what American families have been telling us for the 
last few years, during these tough economic times what they have been 
doing is they have been cutting back. They have been tightening their 
belts, and they sit around the kitchen table and figure out how to 
balance their budget and live within their means.
  Yet today on the other side, all you've seen is a parade of Members 
coming and criticizing the concept of a balanced budget, actually 
calling it extreme, radical. Imagine that. Only a big-spending 
Washington liberal could think it would be radical to require 
Washington to start living within its means like families have been 
doing for years.
  So, frankly, American families would say it's about time. Welcome to 
the party. And, instead, some people think you can just live in this 
fantasy land where you can just keep taxing, spending, borrowing money 
from China and act like the day of reckoning is never going to come and 
kick the can down to our children and our grandchildren and make it 
their problem.
  Well, it's time to say enough is enough. We're not going to pass this 
on to the next generation. We're going to deal with our problems today. 
We're going to set priorities today and do the tough things people sent 
us to do. And that means cutting, capping, and balancing the Federal 
budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, again, the choice is not whether we put 
in place a plan to reduce the deficit and balance the budget. The issue 
is how we do that. That is the difference here.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARRETT. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Cut, Cap, 
and Balance. Out-of-control spending by the Federal Government has 
driven our country to the brink of financial meltdown.
  Our Nation's debt crisis was easily predictable. In recent years, 
America has watched as the size of the Federal Government has ballooned 
and deficit spending has reached dangerous levels. Yet despite the 
warning, Congress stuck with business as usual--more spending, more 
regulations, and bigger government. It's time to put an end to business 
as usual for the good of the country. Our country needs it, the 
American people demand it, and the future of our grandchildren depends 
on it.
  This legislation puts us on the path of fiscal responsibility, brings 
certainty, and restores private sector confidence. The naysayers say we 
can't do this. They argue for tax increases on our job creators. This 
measure will unleash the private sector and result in more revenues to 
ensure strength in Social Security, Medicare, and other needed 
programs.
  Just raising the debt ceiling without spending cut reforms according 
to Moody's and Standards & Poor's will probably lead to a downgrade of 
U.S. paper and a downhill spiral, higher interest rates, higher taxes, 
and less opportunities. I urge the support of this and to cut spending 
now instead of 6 to 10 years from now.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARRETT. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Stearns), who, while the White House says that leadership is not simply 
proposing a bill to vote up or down, recognizes that the White House 
has not given us any plan of leadership so far on this issue.
  Mr. STEARNS. It's been said before that the United States Government 
owes close to $14.3 trillion. An estimate by the CBO reveals that by 
the year 2021, the government will spend 100 percent of every dollar in 
revenue on entitlements. Simply raising the debt limit to $16.3 
trillion without comparable spending reduction is irresponsible at best 
and catastrophic for our Nation at worse.
  Forcing our Nation's spiraling and out-of-control debt onto the backs 
of our country's children and grandchildren is irresponsible. 
Comparable spending reductions would be in the amount of at least $2 
trillion. But as

[[Page 11419]]

that does not even cover the interest on the debt, a $4 trillion 
spending reduction would be appropriate; and that's what we should be 
working on.
  Today we must ask ourselves, Is this blessed country of ours 
disciplined enough to solve the debt problem through austerity and 
productivity? I think we can. I believe we can. But only if we break 
from the tradition of spending and raising our debt limit. Instead, we 
must pass H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GARRETT. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. 
Berg).
  Mr. BERG. Mr. Speaker, we've been down this road before. Our country 
faces unprecedented debt. The House has worked to cut spending and 
reduce the deficit. But the Senate Democrat leadership and the Obama 
administration would rather raise taxes and mislead Americans with 
scare tactics rather than support these commonsense solutions, 
solutions that would help get our country back on track.
  We cannot do the same thing over and over again and expect a 
different result. Americans have tightened their belts, and they've 
made the tough choices. It's time for Washington to do the same.
  Our financial situation is a mess. It's going to be a long road to 
get our country back on track, but it's clear we can begin right here. 
We need to cut the spending, we need to cap the growth in government, 
and we need to balance the budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleagues that this 
provision that they're talking about, the constitutional proposal that 
came out of the Judiciary Committee, would prohibit the Congress from 
balancing the budget at 13 percent of GDP expenditures. It would say 
you cannot make that choice. It would also say you have to reach a two-
thirds hurdle to reduce the special interest tax breaks for the purpose 
of deficit reduction.
  So we keep hearing about this balanced budget amendment without any 
mention from our colleagues that they've inserted these two devices 
into the Constitution that would limit our ability to balance the 
budget in a balanced way.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARRETT. Would that we had the problem of this Congress over the 
last 2 years trying to balance the budget, what with $1 trillion in 
additional stimulus spending, $2 trillion in the cost of ObamaCare, $3 
trillion overall added to the budget deficit. Would that be the problem 
that we'd look to the other side of the aisle to try to live within our 
means. Unfortunately, that's not the case. And that's the reason why, 
as our Founders understood and as we spoke of Jefferson before, the 
need to try to constrain ourselves with cutting spending now, placing 
legislative caps offered tomorrow, and then going forward in the future 
with a constitutional balanced budget amendment.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from North Carolina 
(Mrs. Myrick), who understands the importance of living within our 
means.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, the possible default of the Federal 
Government presents a near-term problem which could have disastrous 
effects in the short-term on our economy.
  But the bigger problem is long term because Washington has just been 
spending too much money for too darn long--borrowing 40 cents just 
about of every dollar we spend, most of it from China, and sending the 
bills to our kids and our grandkids.
  This bill to cut spending, cap and then balance the budget is 
something that needs to be done. And we can't keep kicking the can down 
the road. You've heard that before, but it's true. The responsibility 
is on us to do the right thing for tomorrow for our families and 
everybody else.
  We balanced the budget almost, some years ago. It's not impossible. 
It can be done if we have the courage to do it; 49 out of 50 States do 
it.
  So we need to remember there's no such thing as government money. It 
is the taxpayers' money. It's our job to be responsible stewards of 
that. We need to step up and take that responsibility and pass this 
bill.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, that's right. A few years ago during the 
Clinton administration when they took a balanced approach to deficit 
reduction, we did run surpluses.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished member of the 
Budget Committee as well for the great work that he has been doing.
  As I listened to my friends discuss this question of being 
responsible, I want to at least announce breaking news that our friends 
in the other body have come up with a semi-solution on revenue and on 
the question of how we would cut. They are seeking to be responsible; 
and today in this body, we are not.

                              {time}  1720

  I heard a tutorial about the green light and the red light, which, as 
a Member, you understand green is ``yes'' and ``no'' comes up red. What 
the red will mean is to stop the insanity, to stop the loss of our 
moral compass, the responsibility to pay America's bills. What the 
green light will mean is that America, in fact, would not be paying the 
bills of our families. We wouldn't be paying Social Security; interest 
rates would spike; the U.S. dollar would decline; and our credit would 
literally go out the door. Being without responsibility is what we are 
planning to do. Then we will lose the ability to pay for the Medicare 
of American Seniors and would no longer keep America's hospital's open 
and doctors paid.
  So don't be fooled by the green light tutorial. We, frankly, are 
going to lose our way. We'll close hospitals. We won't have the ability 
to provide for our seniors, and these are the very persons that my 
colleagues over here believe that they are helping. But the main point 
that I want to emphasize very quickly is that the Constitution of the 
United States already says that the validity of the public debt of the 
United States in the 14th Amendment, section 4, shall not be 
questioned.
  Let me tell you today that a balanced budget amendment will destroy 
the United States, and it will not allow us to pay for those in need. 
Tap dance, losers' club, bust the benefits. That's what this bill is. 
Tap dance, losers club, and bust the benefits. That is what will happen 
to all of us. Americans like the friends and families of our military 
personnel will suffer.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2560, the ``Cut, Cap, 
and Balance Act of 2011,'' which attempts to resolve our budget ceiling 
crisis by authorizing an increase in the debt limit while implementing 
spending cuts, caps on future spending, and requiring an amendment to 
the Constitution. While I support bipartisan efforts to increase the 
debt limit and to resolve our differences over budgetary revenue and 
spending issues, I cannot support a bill that unduly constrains the 
ability of Congress to deal effectively with America's economic, 
fiscal, and job creation troubles.
  As I stated earlier this afternoon, This bill should be called the 
``Tap Dance, Loser Club, and Bust Bill.'' It tap dances around raising 
our debt ceiling and acting in a responsible manner to pay our nation's 
debt obligations. Our nation will be joining the losers club by 
threatening to eliminate important social programs such as Medicaid, 
Medicare, Social Security, and Pell grants. There has been a theme this 
Congress of focusing on cutting programs for the most at need and 
ignoring the need to focus on Job creation. This bill busts the hopes 
and dreams of our children, seniors, and military families. It busts 
the hopes to grow our nation in the future. I state again that H.R. 
2560 has earned the name the ``Tap Dance, Loser Club, and Bust Bill.'' 
I will call it the ``Tap Dance, Loser Club, and Bust Bill'' from this 
point forward, because that is what it is . . . when something walks 
like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck . . . call it a 
duck. This bill is wasting a tremendous amount of time when we should 
be focused on paying our nation's bills and resolving our differences.
  As we continue to discuss the necessity of increasing out debt 
ceiling, I have heard the concerns of many of my constituents and the 
American people regarding the size of our national debt and the care 
with which taxpayer

[[Page 11420]]

money is spent. I, too, am concerned about these issues; for to burden 
future generations of Americans with tremendous amounts of debt should 
not be a way to avoid our fiscal responsibilities to the American 
people. However, the task of resolving our debt ceiling crisis must 
take precedence over other concerns, including political ideology.
  Prior to the existence of the debt ceiling, Congress had to approve 
borrowing each time the Federal Government wished to borrow money in 
order to carry out its functions. With the onset of World War I, more 
flexibility was needed to expand the government's capability to borrow 
money expeditiously in order to meet the rapidly changing requirements 
of funding a major war in the modern era.
  To address this need, the first debt ceiling was established in 1917, 
allowing the Federal Government to borrow money to meet its obligations 
without prior Congressional approval, so long as in the aggregate, the 
amount borrowed did not eclipse a specified limit.
  Since the debt limit was first put in place, Congress has increased 
it over 100 times; in fact, it was raised 10 times within the past 
decade. Congress last came together and raised the debt ceiling in 
February 2010. Today, the debt ceiling currently stands at $14.3 
trillion dollars. In reality, that limit has already been eclipsed, but 
due to accounting procedures by Treasury Secretary Geithner, the debt 
limit can be artificially avoided until August 2nd.
  Congress must act now in order to avert a crisis. Never in the 
history of America has the United States defaulted on its debt 
obligations.
  We must be clear on what this issue means for our country. United 
States Treasury bonds have traditionally been one of the safest 
investments another country or investor could make. For foreign nations 
and investors, purchasing a U.S. Treasury bond meant that they held 
something virtually as safe as cash, backed by the full faith and 
credit of the United States Government.
  In turn, with the proceeds from the bonds, the Federal Government of 
the world's largest economy is able to finance its operations. If the 
United States defaults on its debt obligations, the financial crisis 
that began in 2008 would pale in comparison, according to economic 
experts. The ensuing economic catastrophe would not only place the U.S. 
economy in a tailspin, but the world economy as well.
  The fact that Congress, a body that typically has its fair share of 
political baffles, has never played political chicken when it came to 
raising the debt ceiling should give us all pause, and is a testament 
to the seriousness with which we must approach this issue. However, 
this time around, my Republican colleagues have created an impasse 
based upon an ideological commitment to spending cuts. While I 
understand and share the concern of my Republican colleagues with 
respect to deficit spending, and will continue to work with them in 
order to find reductions, now is not the time to put ideology over 
pragmatism. The reality is that, on August 3rd, the United States will 
begin to default on its debt obligations if the debt ceiling is not 
raised.
  This detour into a spending debate is as unnecessary as it is 
perilous, as increasing the debt ceiling does not obligate the 
undertaking of any new spending by the Federal Government. Rather, 
raising the debt limit simply allows the government to pay existing 
legal obligations promised to debt holders that were already agreed to 
by Presidents and Congresses, both past and present.
  Moreover, the impending crisis would have already occurred were it 
not for the extraordinary measures taken by Treasury Secretary Timothy 
Geithner, including the suspension of the investment in securities to 
finance the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, as well as 
the redemption of a portion of those securities already held by that 
fund.
  If the United States defaults on its obligations on August 3rd, the 
stock market will react violently to the news that for the first time 
in history, America is unable to keep its promises to pay. Not once in 
American history has the country's full faith and credit been called 
into question.
  Once America defaults, investors who purchase U.S. bonds and finance 
our government will be less likely to lend to America in the future. 
Just as a person who defaults on a loan will find it harder to convince 
banks to lend them money in the future, a country that defaults on its 
debt obligations will find it harder to convince investors to lend 
money to a government that did not pay. Showing the world that the 
United States does not pay its debts makes the purchasing of that debt 
less desirable because it requires the assumption of more risk on the 
part of the investors.
  Furthermore, any investors that do continue to purchase U.S. Treasury 
bonds will demand much higher interest rates in order to cover the 
increased risk. Once a default occurs, investors figure that the chance 
of the United States defaulting again is much greater, and will require 
the government to pay higher rates of interest in order to make the 
loan worth the risk for investors to take on.
  Imagine the impact on our stock market if we do not pay our debts. As 
we have seen throughout the recent financial crisis, a bad stock market 
hurts not only big businesses and large investors on Wall Street, but 
small businesses and small investors as well. Families with investments 
tied to the stock market, such as 401(k)s, pension plans, and savings, 
will once again see the value of their investments drop. The American 
people are tired of the uncertainty of the value of their retirement 
accounts. We must not allow another wild fluctuation to occur due to 
default and add to the uncertainty still lingering in the minds of 
citizens.
  As if another stock market crisis were not enough, the housing market 
would take another hit if America defaulted. Higher mortgage rates in a 
housing market already weakened by default and foreclosures would cause 
a further depression of home values, destroying whatever equity 
families might have left in their homes after the housing crisis. 
Moreover, the long-term effects would reduce spending and investment in 
the housing market.
  Increasing the debt ceiling is the responsible thing to do. Congress 
has already debated and approved the debt that an increased ceiling 
makes room for. However, my Republican colleagues have chosen to use 
this as an opportunity to hold the American people hostage to their 
extreme agenda. They know that the ``Tap Dance, Loser Club, and Bust 
Bill'' is not a realistic proposal.
  In fact, part of the bill is another attempt to get the Paul Ryan 
budget plan enacted, which caps annual spending as a share of GDP. 
Moreover, it limits discretionary spending for the global war on 
terror. As a member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I am acutely 
aware of the threats our Nation faces from terrorism. By tying the 
hands of Congress in the fight against terrorism, this bill puts our 
troops and our homeland at risk. The safety of the American people has 
no price, and Congress should not be constrained when coming together 
to decide what level of funding is most appropriate for the global war 
on terror.
  If that were not enough, this bill goes beyond simply implementing 
budgetary restraints, and contains the absurd requirement that a 
Constitutional amendment be passed by both the House and Senate and 
submitted to states prior to any increase in the debt ceiling. Leaving 
the merits of such a Constitutional amendment aside for a moment, do 
the proponents of this bill honestly expect such an amendment to be 
submitted to the states by the August 2nd deadline?
  Passing an amendment to the Constitution is one of the most serious 
processes the United States Congress can undertake, requiring a two 
thirds supermajority of support in both the House and Senate and 
ratification by three fourths (\3/4\ths) of the States. The Founders 
purposely made the amendment process a long and arduous one. Do my 
Republican colleagues really expect Congress to capriciously pass an 
amendment altering our Nation's founding document on such short notice; 
an amendment that will fundamentally change our country without 
reasonable time for debate; without the opportunity for a hearing or 
questioning of witnesses; without any reports as to what impact it may 
have?
  By tying the fate of whether the United States pays its debt 
obligations to the historically prolonged Constitutional amendment 
process, the Republicans who support this bill have demonstrated, at 
this critical juncture in American history, that they are profoundly 
irresponsible when it comes to the integrity of our economy and utterly 
bereft of sensible solutions for fixing it.
  Moreover, the Constitutional amendment itself is merely a ploy to 
make tax cuts for the wealthy and tax loopholes for big corporations a 
permanent fixture of American governance. It would make any revenue-
raising measure unconstitutional unless a two-thirds supermajority 
approves it. This is simply unprecedented and unacceptable.
  H.J. Res. 1, one of the Constitutional amendment bills acceptable 
under this bill, limits annual federal spending to 20 percent of the 
prior year's gross domestic product (GDP), a limit even lower than 20 
percent of the current year's GDP since GDP typically grows each year. 
By contrast, federal spending averaged 22 percent of GDP during Ronald 
Reagan's presidency--before the baby boomers had reached retirement 
age, swelling the population eligible for Social Security and Medicare, 
and when health care costs were much lower. As written this bill would 
render Social Security unconstitutional in its current form. Capping 
future spending below Reagan-era

[[Page 11421]]

levels would force devastating cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, Social 
Security, Head Start, child care, Pell grants, and many other critical 
programs.
  Any cuts made to accommodate a mandated balanced budget would fall 
most heavily on domestic discretionary programs; the immediate result 
of a balanced budget amendment would be devastating cuts in education, 
homeland security, public safety, health care and research, 
transportation and other vital services.
  As written this bill would cut total funding for non-defense 
discretionary programs by approximately 70 percent in 2021, and by more 
than $3 trillion over the next ten years. This includes veterans' 
medical care, most homeland security activities, border protection, and 
the FBI. These cuts will impact funds to protect our Nation's food and 
water supply, environmental protections, medical research, education, 
and services for disadvantaged or abused children, frail elderly 
people, and people with severe disabilities.
  H.J. Res 1 proposes to convert Medicare to vouchers and raises its 
eligibility from age 65 to 67. It also raises the Social Security 
retirement age to 70. It contains cuts to the core programs for the 
poorest and most disadvantaged Americans in 2021; Medicaid, the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps), 
and Supplemental Security Income would all be cut in half.
  This bill will make victims of natural disasters part of the ``Loser 
Club.'' As the drought in Texas continues, ranchers are forced to sell 
cattle in the largest beef-producing state. The drought has also 
induced wildfires. Just last month, a fire that lasted more than a week 
burned over 4,200 acres and destroyed between two and three million 
dollars in timber. Since November 2010, more than 13,000 fires have 
burned over 3.29 million acres of Texas land. Texas Governor Rick Perry 
requested that the President declare disaster areas in the State of 
Texas in order to make those areas eligible for federal relief funds. 
This bill threatens to take away those very funds.
  In the State of Missouri, storms, tornadoes, and floods recently 
ravaged the lands. A nuclear plant was inches of water away from being 
shut down because of rising flood water. Levees failed to block surging 
flood waters. The Army Corps of Engineers responded, helping with 
hundreds of thousands of sandbags.
  This bill threatens to make losers out of the people who suffer from 
these natural disasters. The Small Business Administration (SBA) helps 
homeowners, renters, businesses of all sizes, and private nonprofit 
organizations to fund repair or rebuilding efforts and cover the cost 
of replacing lost or personal property destroyed by disasters. The SBA 
sets up temporary disaster loan outreach centers where small business 
applicants can apply for low interest loans and information and 
updates. The SBA lets natural disaster victims submit disaster loan 
applications for damage and losses from storms, tornadoes, and 
flooding. Instead of submitting applications to the SBA, victims of 
natural disasters will be submitting applications to join the ``Loser 
Club.''
  The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives applications 
for assistance in the form of grants and loans. Private insurance 
companies deny many claims. Private insurance may not be enough to 
cover the losses. Specialists from the FEMA go on foot and help 
families with losses from natural disasters. They offer loans up to 
$200,000 to repair or replace real estate; $40k to repair or replace 
personal property, at low interest rates. Once funding is stripped from 
this disaster loan program, are people going to be happy with the 
interest rates that are provided courtesy of their Loser Club 
membership?
  My home state of Texas ranks 43rd in education, and last (50th) in 
the nation in people over 25 who only have a high school education. 
This bill will destroy the hopes and dreams of people who are striving 
to improve those numbers. With this bill, our children will be given a 
``Loser Club'' education and go on to earn ``Losers Club'' degrees.
  An alternative plan, put forth by Senate Democratic and Republican 
Majority and Minority Leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, 
respectively, deals with the debt ceiling crisis in a way that is less 
controversial for Democrats. Although still in the negotiation stages, 
the plan has a few emerging ideas and general bipartisan support in the 
Senate. However, House Republicans have expressed their dissatisfaction 
with the proposal.
  Tentatively, the Reid-McConnell debt ceiling proposal would allow the 
President to raise the debt ceiling 3 times in the next year in an 
amount totaling $2.5 trillion. Furthermore, it permits Congress to vote 
on a resolution of disproval of each increase of the debt ceiling, 
essentially assigning blame to President Obama for each increase. It 
includes a plan to reduce the deficit in the amount of $1.5 trillion 
over 10 years through cuts to domestic programs, while avoiding cuts to 
entitlement programs or raising new taxes.
  Moreover, the Reid-McConnell debt ceiling proposal would create a new 
Congressional panel tasked with coming up with, by the end of the year, 
a way of reducing the deficit by another $2.5 trillion or more through 
cuts in entitlements and other yet-to-be identified steps. The proposed 
committee would be comprised of 12 lawmakers who would issue a report 
to Congress on how to achieve this. While I am still not convinced that 
the cuts for this proposal will not unfairly harm our seniors and other 
beneficiaries of domestic programs, I anticipate the product of these 
negotiations, as they appear to be far more realistic than the bill 
before us today.
  I urge my colleagues to consider the constituents in their home 
districts who would be hurt by the ``Tap Dance, Loser Club, and Bust 
Bill.'' My Republican colleagues who support the passage of this bill 
seem more concerned with advancing their own agenda rather than with 
resolving a debt ceiling crisis that is placing our economy in great 
peril. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that defaulting 
could ``throw the financial system into chaos'', and ``destroy the 
trust and confidence that global investors have in Treasury securities 
as being the safest liquid assets in the world''. Instead of injecting 
ideological spending cuts and bizarre Constitutional amendments, into 
the traditionally non-political business of raising the debt ceiling, 
we must work quickly to pass a bill that makes good on our debt 
obligations and restores confidence in American credit.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Members are advised to heed the gavel and consume only the time 
yielded them by the managers of the floor.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I would just remind Members of what the 
leader on the other side said, wondering whether Members have actually 
read the bill. If Members do read the bill, they understand that Cut, 
Cap, and Balance, as provided before us, actually does those three 
things and allows us to pay the bills at the same time.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross).
  Mr. ROSS of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, for the last 30 years, I have spent my life as a 
husband, a small business owner, and a State legislator. And one thing 
I have learned from this is that common sense is not so common here in 
Washington, D.C. As a husband, I know it would be irresponsible to buy 
a shiny new car or a new boat when my family couldn't afford to make 
their mortgage payment or their food payment. As a business owner, I 
know that when I didn't have enough to meet my expenses, I didn't raise 
revenues on my customers. I cut back my expenses. And as a legislator, 
I knew that with a balanced budget amendment, we could operate a State 
successfully. In the State of Florida, we did that. You do not see 
Floridians running down the street hungry and rioting. No, you see 
Florida living within its means because of a balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, those opposed to this plan are frightened. They are 
frightened because they know that any cuts agreed to in ``deals'' 
aren't binding on a future Congress and a balanced budget amendment is. 
They know that Cut, Cap, and Balance brings real spending reductions 
today and will force government in the future to get an agreement of 
the whole family, the supermajority, to go into debt or raise taxes. A 
balanced budget amendment is common sense. The American people are 
watching, and their patience is wearing thin.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GARRETT. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Palazzo).
  Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, with a record debt level of $14.2 trillion, 
unemployment at 9.2 percent, and our spending habits out of control, 
Americans are searching for answers. They are searching for a plan that 
gives them real hope, a lifeline that will pull them out of the water 
and onto solid ground. The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act is that lifeline. 
It is a simple plan with guaranteed results.

[[Page 11422]]

  Raising the debt ceiling without serious spending reforms would be 
nothing more than a green light for more of President Obama's failed 
spending programs, more job-destroying tax hikes, and more crushing 
debt. The President's policies have us borrowing 40 cents on every 
dollar we spend and will make our children foot the bill. This will 
bankrupt America and jeopardize our children's futures.
  We must take extraordinary action to solve our debt problems, and I 
urge my colleagues to support the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. By making 
immediate cuts and bringing Federal spending in line with historic 
averages, we can promote job growth, sustain our Nation's economic 
viability, and ensure that the future of America is secure. Mr. 
Speaker, Members of Congress, let's throw Americans a lifeline and vote 
``yes'' on the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it does not throw Americans a lifeline 
to write into the Constitution of the United States a provision that 
creates a preference for cutting Medicare and Social Security over 
cutting subsidies for oil companies.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARRETT. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am one of the original sponsors 
of the tax limitation/balanced budget amendment under the Contract with 
America back in 1995. I have got one of the most conservative voting 
records in the House over the last 25 years. Common sense tells you 
that our budget problem today is a spending problem. It is not a 
revenue problem. And as the first law of ditch-digging says, When you 
are digging a hole, in order to fill it, you've got to stop digging it 
deeper.
  President Obama's budget that he submitted to the Congress earlier 
this year does not have a budget deficit of less than $500 billion over 
a 10-year period. Cut, Cap, and Balance may have some technical issues 
with it, but the basic premise is sound: We need to spend less money 
short term, this year; we need to spend less money in the next 5 years; 
and we need a constitutional amendment that locks into place that we, 
over time, have to balance our budget every year unless there is some 
act of war or national emergency going on that takes a two-thirds vote 
to override. Vote for this bill later this evening.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. GARRETT. At this point, I will yield that 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, one problem that I see 
from my colleagues across the aisle and the President is that many of 
them have never signed the front of a paycheck. They have only signed 
the back of a paycheck. I was a small-town banker for 8\1/2\ years. I 
practice the five Cs of credit: character, capacity, capital, 
collateral, and cash flow.
  If our country was held to these same standards, President Obama 
would never get the loan that he's asking for. I have struggled on this 
vote because of the $14 trillion of debt that our Nation faces. 
President Obama has yet to come up with a plan that changes our 
spending trajectory, but this House has. Cut, Cap, and Balance--it's 
not just any plan, but it's revolutionarily reformed the way Congress 
spends money.
  We aren't $14 trillion in debt because we tax Americans too little. 
We're in debt because Congress has spent too much money. We don't have 
a revenue problem, folks. We have a spending problem.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey 
has expired.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) is recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. JORDAN. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
that.
  Folks, reforms like a balanced budget amendment, coupled with 
spending caps and significant spending cuts, are the types of 
revolutionary reforms that can prevent our children and grandchildren 
from inheriting mountains of debt. Passing off the debt problem to them 
may be the easy way. But it is not the American way, and it's 
definitely not the Christian way.
  As President Reagan said, ``You and I, as individuals, can, by 
borrowing, live beyond our means, but only for a limited period of 
time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a Nation, we're 
not bound by that same limitation? We must act today in order to 
preserve tomorrow.''
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that when Ronald 
Reagan was President, he raised the debt ceiling 17 times and 
specifically wrote to the Congress, saying that failure to pay our 
bills would jeopardize the creditworthiness and trustworthiness of the 
United States. Let's not make that mistake. President Reagan didn't 
want to make that mistake.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. FATTAH. Members speak with so much certainty about these things. 
It's not what we know that's the problem. It's what we know that just 
isn't so.
  Now, first and foremost, when we look at the Constitution of the 
United States, and we look at article I, when we deal with the 
legislature, among other things, the items or powers granted to the 
legislature, the first one is to borrow on credit on behalf of the 
United States. Now, if the Forefathers had no notion that we would be 
borrowing, they would not have granted this as the first enumerated 
power to the legislature.
  But let's deal with this more commonsensical misinformation that's 
been shared on the floor. They said, well, most families have to 
balance their budgets. No, our families have mortgages. They don't wait 
till they get homeless to then go the bank to try to get a roof over 
their family's head. They borrow so they can have a home.
  They don't wait until they need a car; they borrow the money to have 
the car.
  They said most businesses balance their budget. The manufacturers in 
my district don't wait until their machines fall apart to recapitalize 
their business. So we need to stop dealing in falsehoods here and know 
that our country, the greatest superpower in the world, has to act in 
responsible ways.
  I encourage a ``no'' vote on this proposal.
  Mr. JORDAN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the great State of 
Louisiana (Mr. Landry).
  Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of H.R. 2560.
  We need to set the record straight. See, the President said we don't 
need a constitutional amendment to make government do its job. I don't 
see why he cares. He normally ignores the Constitution most of the 
time.
  He says he will veto this bill if it comes to his desk. Well, he can 
go ahead and veto it; but if he does, it is he who is choosing our 
seniors over everyone else. It is he who is choosing not to move 
America forward.
  Let's look at the record. House Republicans reluctantly passed a CR 
which was diluted by him and the Senate. We passed a budget, something 
the Senate hasn't done in 811 days, and something the last Congress 
didn't do in the last year of the last Congress.
  I'm sorry if they don't like our plan, but the President hasn't even 
put up a plan. He gives us no choice.
  So, no, Mr. President, we don't need a balanced budget amendment, but 
you do.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to rise and support Cut, Cap, and 
Balance.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has a plethora of advisories. 
First of all, Members are reminded to address their remarks to the 
Chair and not to others in the second person.
  Secondly, personally disparaging remarks directed at the President of 
the United States are inappropriate.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 11423]]


  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, we're broke. Everyone from the small 
business owner in West Virginia to Standard and Poor's and Moody's is 
looking to Washington to solve this fiscal mess.
  We have a responsibility to demonstrate that we can responsibly raise 
the debt ceiling by changing the way Washington treats the taxpayers' 
dollars. The reason we're in over our heads is not because we're taxed 
too little; it's because we spend too much.
  The bill before us today, Cut, Cap, and Balance, is a tangible idea 
that demonstrates we have to pay our bills while making sure our future 
credit card statements are not budget-busting.
  If we want to protect our seniors and our grandchildren, encourage 
small business, and create jobs and safeguard the American Dream, we 
need to get our economy back on track. That starts with living within 
our means. It's about time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hultgren).
  Mr. HULTGREN. Mr. Speaker, the American people know that Washington 
has a massive spending and debt problem that threatens not only our 
Nation's credit rating, but our fiscal future.
  As a father of four, I understand the threat our Nation's fiscal 
crisis poses to them and to others in their generation. A child born 
today inherits more than $45,000 of debt, an astounding and terrifying 
statistic.
  It's clear that Congress needs to cut spending to ensure that America 
remains strong and prosperous for future generations. We must fight 
both the threat of downgrade and the threat of default. This 
commonsense bill provides a guide to doing just that, without raising 
taxes on job creators.
  We must force this government to live within its means, preserve our 
Nation's sterling credit rating, and fight for a brighter future for 
our kids and our grandkids.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Cut, 
Cap, and Balance bill and send it to the Senate with the strongest 
possible support.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I still fail to see how it helps our 
kids and helps our seniors to write into the Constitution of the United 
States a bias in favor of cutting Medicare and cutting Social Security 
and cutting education before cutting special interest tax breaks. They 
would require only a majority to cut Social Security and Medicare, but 
two-thirds to get rid of special interest tax breaks for the purpose of 
reducing the deficit. That's why this is a question of priorities and a 
question of balance.
  How do we reduce the deficit? How do we get it into balance?
  I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentleman for his leadership and for 
pointing out the priorities and the focus and the injustice and 
unfairness of the Republican proposal.
  At a time when Congress should be laser focused on finding new ways 
to grow our economy and create American jobs, we find ourselves, once 
again, bogged down in producing the Republican version of ``Waiting for 
Godot.'' We all know that this bill will never become law, that it is 
going nowhere in the Senate.
  Their slash-and-burn cuts have not created a single job for 
hardworking middle class families. And, in fact, most economists say 
that cutting too deeply, too strongly would hinder economic recovery 
and could return us to a recession.
  For the average American family, the Republican proposal would mean a 
cut in their future prospects, a cap on their dreams for tomorrow, and 
balancing the budget on the backs of America's seniors, while they 
refuse to even look at cutting a special interest tax break or subsidy. 
They continue to subsidize companies that send our jobs overseas and 
subsidize record-breaking profits that our oil companies have, but 
they're subsidizing some of them to the tune of 40 percent.
  The Republicans have brought us to the brink of a national default in 
an effort to force the American people to accept their ideological 
agenda.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the gentleman from 
Indiana, let me just say this: This idea that there's no chance this 
will pass the Senate, how do we know? We don't know until we send it 
over there. Maybe Harry Reid will have the courage to bring it up on 
the floor. We don't know.
  You know what? Every Friday night when they get ready to play the 
game, there's always one team that's favored, maybe heavily favored. 
But they still kick the ball off, they still play the game, and 
sometimes the underdog wins.
  In fact, anything of real magnitude that's ever happened, the 
conventional wisdom was, it can't happen. So how do we know?
  I'm sick of this argument it can't happen in the Senate. We don't 
know that. If the conventional wisdom always won out, there wouldn't be 
a United States of America. This is one of those historic moments. And 
to say this thing can't pass the Senate is just plain wrong, just plain 
wrong.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JORDAN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Here's the question. As you know, this requires that 
we later pass a constitutional amendment. In fact, between now and 
August 2 we have to pass a constitutional amendment which, of course, 
requires two-thirds in the House. We'll find out by later this evening 
whether or not this bill will even get two-thirds in the House.
  Mr. JORDAN. I think it's going to get 218, and we'll send it to the 
Senate. At some point we may be able to get two-thirds. That's our 
whole goal. This bill needs 218.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. The point is, this bill says you can't continue to 
pay the bills unless, between now and August 2 or whenever----
  Mr. JORDAN. I know what the bill says.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. We pass a constitutional amendment with the 
provisions that you have in here. And so it will be a test today 
whether you can get the two-thirds to change the Constitution in the 
ways you're talking about.

                              {time}  1740

  Mr. JORDAN. Reclaiming my time, is the gentleman from Maryland 
suggesting that if there are some changes made to the balanced budget 
amendment in our legislation that there would be 50 votes in the House 
to support it on your side?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I've already indicated that there is a conversation 
to be had with respect to what is a reasonable approach, but that is 
absolutely not what we're dealing with in this particular bill as we've 
debated.
  Mr. JORDAN. That's good to know.
  Reclaiming my time, so what you're saying is you guys actually think 
the balanced budget amendment is a good idea and something we need.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. We believe, as the President said, the best way for 
us to balance the budget is to get together and hammer out a deal 
sooner rather than later.
  Mr. JORDAN. Oh, that's really worked well over the last 40 years.
  I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the American people who may be 
paying attention to this whole debate may be a little confused; so let 
me just sum it up in one sentence: They want to spend more, they want 
to tax more, and we don't.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if what the gentleman is saying is that we think we 
should get rid of a lot of the pork barrel spending in the Tax Code, 
whether it's oil subsidies or whether it's for corporate jets, yes, we 
think we should get rid of some of that stuff for the purpose of 
reducing the deficit.
  Mr. JORDAN. Will the gentleman yield for a question?

[[Page 11424]]


  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. We have a lot less time; otherwise, I would.
  If the Speaker would tell us how much time is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio has 23\3/4\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Maryland has 40\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. Then the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) will control 30 
minutes.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Duffy).
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, we've had a great debate here on Cut, Cap, 
and Balance. All the points have been made. But as I sit here and 
listen to this debate, Mr. Speaker, I can't help but notice the 
hypocrisy.
  We're dealing with the other side, who is the advocate of three wars. 
They have a $1 trillion stimulus bill, a $1 trillion-plus ObamaCare, 
and they don't want to come to the table and have a conversation about 
how we're going to reduce spending in the U.S. Government. And then we 
hear all this conversation about tax loopholes. Well, welcome to the 
party.
  Mr. Speaker, 2 months ago, we had a bill on the floor where we did 
away with all these loopholes and reformed our tax codes and they did 
nothing to support that reform, and now they demagogue our plan again.
  We hear about sending jobs overseas. Well, jobs are going overseas 
because we're taxing our businesses too much. When you tax them too 
much, they go other places. And when they go other places--like China, 
India, Mexico, and Vietnam--they take our jobs with them.
  I've heard a lot about Medicare. The only party in this House who has 
cut Medicare is the Democrat Party--$500 billion out of Medicare in an 
IPAB bill that is going to ration care for our seniors.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will again remind Members to heed 
the gavel and consume only the time yielded to them.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to look at 
the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the impact of the 
Republican budget on senior citizens on Medicare. Essentially what they 
do is give seniors a raw deal compared to what Members of Congress get 
themselves, a raw deal in a big way.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana, Dr. Fleming.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, but for the President of the United States 
who serves today and a Democrat-controlled Congress over the last 2 
years, we wouldn't be here today debating this; $3.8 trillion added to 
our debt and continuing on that same glidepath.
  Mr. Speaker, we're here today because people across America--
businesses, cities, States--all have to balance their budgets. The only 
game in this country, the only entity that doesn't have to balance its 
budget is the Federal Government, and that's what has ruined our 
economy.
  So all we're asking for in this bill is simply to immediately cut 
$111 million in fiscal 2012; begin capping our spending rates, bringing 
it down to what's traditional, 18 percent; and then, finally, passing a 
balanced budget amendment that will finally put the restraints on this 
body, on the President of the United States, and certainly on the 
Senate, finally, so we will begin doing the people's work and allow 
this economy to flourish once again.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Southerland).
  Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Mr. Speaker, every second of every day Washington 
adds another $40,000 to our national debt. In fact, by the time I 
finish speaking this sentence our national debt will increase another 
$360,000--$360,000 in one sentence.
  We've reached the edge of a cliff, and it's going to take tough 
decisions and responsible leadership to eliminate this massive, massive 
debt. That's why today I rise in support of H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, 
and Balance Act of 2011. I support it because it's right, not because 
it's a Republican plan, but because it's a commonsense plan. It's the 
American family plan.
  Every American family cuts their budget, caps their budget, and 
balances their budget with their own finances; so should Washington. 
That is not an unfair expectation. To argue against this is to argue 
against common sense. This is to say, as bad parents do, ``Do as I say, 
not as I do.'' That is bad parenting, and that's also bad legislation.
  Unfortunately, over the past 3 months, our efforts to get serious 
about this crisis have been met with scare tactics. Enough. Enough of 
the political parlor tricks coming out of this city. It is time for us 
to do the job that the American people sent us here to do: practice 
common, walking-around sense. That's what my grandfather taught me. 
That's good at home; that's good in the family; that's good in small 
business; and it is good enough for Washington, D.C.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, American families don't have the luxury 
of saying if we don't get things 100 percent our way, we won't pay our 
family bills.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Our national unemployment rate is stuck at over 9 
percent. We're currently borrowing 43 cents on every dollar that's 
spent around here, and our national debt stands at a staggering $14.5 
trillion. The American people are demanding that we in Congress provide 
real solutions to these serious problems. The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act 
does just that.
  The debate today is not whether we should make good on our current 
obligations. We're all in agreement that we must pay our bills, but the 
spending in Washington is out of control and it has to stop. We have to 
cap future spending, and passing a balanced budget amendment is 
critical to doing that; because, let's face it, historically Congress 
has shown no will or the ability to stop its addiction to spending.
  Right now, back in my district in Cincinnati, hardworking Americans 
are making tough decisions, tightening their belts, and making 
sacrifices to pay their bills. They expect us to do the same.
  Now let's do the right thing and pass this critical bill.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. JORDAN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, this has been a fascinating debate. Members 
on both sides of the aisle stand and claim moral superiority when it 
comes to the debt that we've accumulated. There is plenty of blame to 
go around.
  When Republicans had majorities in both the House and the Senate and 
when there was a Republican in the White House, we behaved badly, from 
No Child Left Behind to prescription drug benefits, bloated farm bills, 
swollen highway bills, bridges to nowhere, pork strewn everywhere. 
Let's be honest, we were headed toward this fiscal cliff long before 
the current President took the wheel.

                              {time}  1750

  So here we are today, Mr. Speaker. It matters little who drove what 
shift. What matters is that we, both parties, are teetering on the 
fiscal cliff, getting ready to drag the country into the abyss.
  Fortunately, the 2006 midterm elections sent many of us on a detour 
on the road to Damascus, and we are here today with a cut, cap, and 
balance plan that will put us back on sure financial footing. If the 
other side of the aisle has a plan that does not entail more of the 
same behavior that got us here, we should consider that plan. To date, 
we have seen no such plan.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this cut, 
cap, and balance legislation.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I agree with a lot of what the gentleman 
said.
  I would say that the President has put a plan on the table to reduce 
the

[[Page 11425]]

deficit by $4 trillion over about 10 years. It does it with $3 in 
spending cuts to $1 in revenue. That approach apparently was rejected 
by our colleagues.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, you know why it was rejected? Because it is 
the same old game. It is exactly the same old game. The cuts come in 
the outyears; the tax increases come now. And, oh, here we go again. 
And, yes, there are no specifics to it. It is the same old game.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
  Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I sit back, and as we are watching the debate today, I 
have got to take my hat off to the gentleman from Maryland, who I think 
has the toughest job in the whole Chamber, Mr. Speaker; and that is, he 
is basically, today, the lawyer for the status quo. And that's a tough 
job. That's a tough argument to make. No matter how thoughtful the 
arguments have been on this side of the aisle that there is an urgency, 
no matter how poignant the arguments are that there is an urgency, no 
matter how jarring the unemployment figures are at 9.2 percent, no 
matter what the rating agencies are saying, the gentleman from Maryland 
is basically saying: No, no, no, there's a better plan.
  But I would submit that there is no better plan. There is no more 
balanced plan than cut, cap, and balance.
  Most Americans as they are listening to this debate, they are hearing 
Washington, D.C., basically say hold the line. Defend the status quo. 
Lash ourselves to the mast and we're going to get around the cape, by 
golly, if we only stick on the current course. Well, the current course 
is a failure. There's nobody who can defend the status quo with a 
straight face.
  What happens now is this majority has come up and said: Okay, there 
is a pathway forward, and the pathway forward is immediate short term 
and long term. And I don't see what the argument is.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROSKAM. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the gentleman.
  If what you mean by protecting the status quo is meaning that I am 
opposed to actually manipulating the Constitution of the United States 
to make it harder to reduce special interest tax breaks, yes, I don't 
think we should change the Constitution that way. But if you mean we 
should----
  Mr. ROSKAM. I will graciously reclaim my time.
  Furthermore, they are doing it in an orderly basis; that is, amending 
the Constitution forthrightly and directly.
  I think, in closing, Mr. Speaker, my hat is off to the gentleman from 
Maryland who, no matter what the majority has come up with, always 
comes up with some argument that just defies logic. But I think most 
Americans, as they are listening to this debate, are saying cut it, cap 
it, and balance it. And do it now.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I think what will defy the logic of the 
American people is why our Republican colleagues are going to write 
into the Constitution of the United States a provision that says a 
majority vote is needed to cut Medicare, a majority vote is needed to 
cut Social Security, a majority vote is needed to cut education, but 
you need two-thirds vote to cut subsidies for Big Oil companies, you 
need a two-thirds vote to get rid of subsidies for corporate jets. That 
is something that defies logic.
  You would also write into the Constitution a provision that says even 
if you balanced the budget at 19 percent of GDP or some other level so 
that we can meet the needs of Social Security and Medicare, you 
wouldn't be able to do that. You would constitutionally prohibit that 
kind of balanced budget, one that meets the needs of Social Security 
and Medicare beneficiaries. That defies logic.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, what defies logic is a $14 trillion debt and 
the Democrats' unwillingness to say let's do what everyone else has to 
do. Let's put a balanced budget requirement in the Constitution so that 
politicians have to do what they have to do in their homes.
  Obviously, the other route didn't work. So what part of $14 trillion 
don't you understand? What part of balancing the budget don't you 
understand?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I understand $14 trillion and----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio controls the time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair, understanding that there are 
passionate arguments on both sides, would ask all Members to observe 
the decorum of the House and conduct debate accordingly by speaking one 
at a time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority whip.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank my colleague from Ohio for 
yielding and for his work on this legislation.
  It is interesting to listen to the debate, and that is healthy. 
That's why we are on this floor.
  ``Defying logic,'' an interesting term. Defying logic, when you think 
of a debt limit. What is a debt limit, and why are we debating it?
  The debt limit, to the American people so you understand, is to pay 
for the obligations that this government has already promised.
  So let's think about defying logic.
  The economy is tough, so I sat in this House and I watched the other 
side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, put together a stimulus bill where I 
even watched their own people stand on the floor and say they didn't 
know if it would work. At the end of the day, defying logic meant 
$278,000 for every job that was created.
  Defying logic to the American public is that more people in America 
today believe that Elvis Presley is alive than the stimulus created a 
job. Defying logic is that we have gone 28 straight months with 
unemployment above 8 percent. Defying logic is to continue this 
pattern. But today we have a debate. Today we have a choice. Today we 
can take a new path.
  I understand why so vigorously you fight this; because it would be a 
change to America. It would change the direction. And the one thing I 
would ask is: When will the assault on the American people stop? That 
would be defying the pattern of where we are going to go.
  So I want to ask you one thing. We ask in this bill to cut where you 
had government spending, just discretionary, gone up 84 percent in the 
last 3 years--to small business, that would be quite odd that they 
weren't able to do that--that we are going to cap it so it can't grow 
out of control, and then we're going to ask for a balanced budget that 
49 States even have as a statute.
  What I want to say today is a new path. It is not a path to repeating 
mistakes; it is a path to a new future. When you think of a balanced 
budget and you question whether it will pass, you know, 16 years ago we 
came one vote shy in the Senate. It passed this body with fewer people 
on this side. That meant people on the other side of the aisle voted 
for it. There are some of the people in your leadership who have voted 
for it.
  Now, I want the American people to think and imagine, imagine had we 
gotten that one vote, the debate today would not have taken place. The 
debate today would not be about $14 trillion. The debate today wouldn't 
be that we had to change the path. The debate today would be about the 
future of this country. What do you think we would be debating? What 
investments we would make to continue to make this country strong? What 
ability we could grow with our businesses, and it wouldn't be about 
unemployment.
  So I want to harken back to a former President who said we could go 
to that shiny city on the hill. My charge is for this body to join us 
on that climb because this is the first step. And when we get there, we 
will recharge that light so this country burns brighter

[[Page 11426]]

with freedom and liberty than it has in times before.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, there are some things that we want to 
change, and there are some things we don't want to change. One of the 
things we don't want to change capriciously is the Constitution of the 
United States of America.
  I think many of us think it is a corruption to the Constitution to 
write in provisions that say you can only balance the budget the way 
the Republicans want to balance the budget; you can only do it by 
capping things at 18 percent even if that means deep cuts to Social 
Security and deep cuts to Medicare.

                              {time}  1800

  We think it's a corruption of the Constitution to write into the 
founding document a provision that says it's easier to cut Medicare and 
Social Security than corporate tax breaks. That is in here. We keep 
hearing 49 out of 50 States. Forty-nine out of 50 States do not write 
those kind of provisions into their State Constitutions--a very few 
do--and for good reason: They're bad ideas, they're bad ideas now, and 
they will be bad ideas in the future which would constrain a Congress 
from balancing the budget in a way that reflects the will of the 
American people.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I would just add, 38 of those 50 States 
would have to agree to this before the Constitution would be amended. 
The gentleman can say, oh, we're going to write this in. The States get 
to decide this. That's the other part of this equation.
  I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Gowdy).
  Mr. GOWDY. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding and 
for his leadership on this and so many other issues.
  Mr. Speaker, the President says he wants to do a big deal. He says he 
wants to do something transformative. He wants to do something that 
will echo in eternity. And he's willing to risk his political career to 
get it done.
  History tells a very different story. In 2006, Senator Barack Obama 
joined 47 Senate Democrats in voting ``no'' on raising the debt 
ceiling. This, the first post-partisan President, cast a decidedly 
partisan vote in joining every single one of his colleagues in saying 
``no'' to raising the debt ceiling. Did calamitous have a different 
definition in 2006? Was reneging on your debt somehow more palatable in 
2006? Was the apocalypse not blowing in 2006? In 2007 and 2008, when 
again this body voted on raising the debt ceiling, the President, who 
was a Senator from Illinois, was absent for both votes.
  Fast forward to President Obama. He has proposed a budget that raises 
this debt by trillions of dollars, with no spending cuts, and then he 
famously invites our colleague, Paul Ryan, to the White House to 
lecture him on sensitivity and entitlement reform while offering 
absolutely no plan whatsoever on his own for entitlement reform. Then 
he said he wanted a clean debt ceiling increase, free from the 
nuisances of spending cuts, entitlement reform, and personal 
responsibility.
  How do you go from voting ``no'' on raising the debt ceiling to 
saying you want a clean increase in the debt, to now saying you want to 
do something transformative that echoes in eternity?
  Mr. Speaker, the President says he has a plan. Forgive our 
skepticism. I'd like to see the plan. I prefer cut, cap, and balance 
over punt, pass, and kick.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would congratulate both floor 
managers as we are at 38\3/4\ minutes on the majority side and 38 
minutes on the minority side.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I haven't read Ayn Rand for 45 years, so all 
I have as a reference point is what I've observed over the last 20 
years in this body.
  I remember when we were trying to pull out of the last recession in 
1990. George H.W. Bush called the leaders of both political parties 
together. They came up with a compromise. They raised revenue, they cut 
spending, and they started to pull us out of the recession. The economy 
started rebounding.
  President Clinton followed suit. In fact, he raised the top tax rates 
to 39.6 percent. Now we heard at the time all of the Republican 
arguments, that you should only cut spending, you can't raise new 
revenue because it's going to cost jobs, and so on. Not one Republican 
vote was cast for the tax increase, but what happened? We know what 
happened. Twenty million jobs were created. We had surpluses. We had 
the strongest economy in modern history. We reduced welfare. We grew 
the middle class. Homeownership increased. And we handed over a 
surplus, a projected surplus, of $5.6 trillion. In fact, this year we 
would have paid off our public debt. And what happened to those who 
paid at that highest rate of 39.6 percent? They brought home more 
after-tax income than at any prior time in American history. It worked.
  And now your party comes in with this attitude we've been hearing 
about all day, you want to drastically cut taxes, shrink government, 
and ensure a permanent indebtedness. In fact just this spring you voted 
for a Republican budget that increased the deficit by $8.8 trillion, 
from $14.3 to $23.1 trillion over the next 10 years. But now you don't 
want to pay for it.
  That's what happened during the last Bush administration. We didn't 
pay for anything. We didn't pay for tax cuts. We didn't pay for wars. 
We didn't pay for expansion of Medicare. That's why we're in the hole 
that we're in.
  Alan Greenspan said, ``Restore the Clinton tax rates.'' Every 
Republican in 2001 and 2003 voted to let the Bush tax cuts expire in 
2011. Do it. Be responsible. Pay off our debts. Let's get back to 
policies that work with a government that deserves the trust of its 
citizens.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are again reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) control the balance of my time, who will also 
take over the final 30 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin will now control 38\3/4\ minutes.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to 
yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. It's no secret that our 
Nation's $14.3 trillion debt poses an extraordinary threat to our 
financial future, and extraordinary times call for extraordinary 
measures. The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act would finally end the fiscal 
uncertainty and force the Federal Government to put the interests of 
the taxpayers first.
  Our colleagues across the aisle claim that this plan goes too far by 
restricting future borrowing, but the reality is that this bill simply 
caps spending at the same sustainable rates as past generations, about 
20 percent of GDP, a post-World War II average.
  For too long, government has spent the taxpayers into a debt they 
cannot afford. Cut, Cap, and Balance would show our creditors, our 
competitors, and the American people that we are willing to make the 
tough choices needed to restore confidence and growth in the United 
States.
  Mr. Speaker, it's time to cut the spending and give American 
businesses the certainty and stability they need to create jobs.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).
  Mr. PLATTS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 2560. It is important for the 
President and Congress to reach a final agreement on the

[[Page 11427]]

debt ceiling that helps restore fiscal responsibility in Washington, 
honors America's obligations, and puts our Nation back on the path to 
prosperity.
  It is clear that our economy will continue to struggle until 
Washington demonstrates the ability to get our spending and our debt 
under control. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral 
Mike Mullen, has stated, our national debt is the biggest threat to our 
national security.
  The Cut, Cap, and Balance bill before us addresses our Nation's 
spending and debt challenges in a manner that stops delaying hard 
decisions. We immediately cut spending by over $100 billion, we cap 
spending in future years at less than 20 percent of GDP, and send a 
balanced budget amendment to the States for ratification.
  At $14 trillion and counting, our national debt currently is quickly 
approaching 100 percent of GDP. The Federal Government is borrowing 40 
cents of every dollar it spends. America cannot continue on this 
unsustainable fiscal path. The full faith and credit of the United 
States Government depends on Congress acting.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.

                              {time}  1810

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I rise in opposition to the drastic cuts to 
Social Security, Medicare, and other crucial Federal programs that this 
Cut, Cap, and Balance Act would force on the American people. The Cut, 
Cap, and Balance Act takes our Nation closer to default by holding the 
debt ceiling hostage until Congress passes a constitutional amendment 
to limit Federal spending to 18 percent of GDP. The last time Federal 
spending was below 18 percent of GDP was 1966. Even under Ronald 
Reagan, the Federal spending averaged over 22 percent of GDP. There's 
almost no conceivable way to revert spending back to the 1960s levels 
without sharp cuts in every program, including Medicare and Social 
Security. In order to reduce Federal spending to 18 percent of GDP, 
every Federal program, including Social Security and Medicare, would 
need to be cut by 25 percent.
  Faced with the need to increase the debt ceiling in 1987, President 
Reagan called on Congress to raise the ceiling and said failure to do 
so would threaten those who rely on Social Security and veterans 
benefits, create instability in the financial markets, and cause the 
Federal deficit to soar. It's funny, I agree with President Reagan.
  Our last balanced budget was in 1999 and 2000, the last years of the 
Democratic President Bill Clinton. Since 2001 we had 9/11, federalizing 
airport security, war in Iraq, Afghanistan, war on terror, a 
prescription drug plan for seniors, and 2001 and 2003 tax cuts--none of 
these were paid for--all went to the National debt. We had a balanced 
annual budget without cutting Medicare or Social Security in 1999 and 
2000. It is time for this chamber to end the political theater, to take 
the necessary steps to avoid default, and I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this dangerous legislation.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).
  Mr. HURT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 2560. We are in a 
spending-driven debt crisis that continues to stall job creation, 
passes a crushing financial burden on to our children, and affecting 
all Fifth District Virginians. Since President Obama took office, our 
national debt has increased by $3.7 trillion, raising our current total 
debt to an unacceptable $14 trillion. Now, after 2\1/2\ years of 
reckless spending, the President is asking that we raise the debt 
ceiling once again. But we have yet to see any concrete plan from this 
administration to help rein in the out-of-control government spending 
that has brought us to the brink of a debt crisis.
  So the House is once again leading in delivering on the message sent 
by the people of Virginia's Fifth District to change the culture in 
Washington and end the government spending spree by putting forth a 
commonsense proposal that will cut, cap, and balance Federal spending 
and force Washington to live within its means. Now is the time to put 
in place effective spending reforms to reduce our debt and deficits, 
return certainty to the marketplace, and preserve the American Dream 
for our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Democratic 
leader, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I commend him for his 
tremendous leadership as the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee 
and for bringing to that debate and that discussion at the table the 
values of the American people and the concerns they have as they sit 
around their kitchen table.
  They are concerned that this Saturday will mark the 200th day of the 
Republicans attaining the majority in the House of Representatives. And 
yet today another day goes by when we do not have a jobs bill on the 
floor. Indeed, we should have a jobs bill. This isn't a jobs bill. We 
should be working together to lower the deficit, to grow the economy, 
to create jobs; and we should be doing so in a balanced, bipartisan 
way. Instead, we have before us what is called the Republican plan to 
cut, cap, and end Medicare.
  This legislation is the Republican budget that was voted on earlier 
this year all over again. Wildly unpopular among the American people, 
the Republican budget, again, ended Medicare, made seniors pay more for 
less, while it gave take breaks to Big Oil and corporations sending 
jobs overseas. It made kids pay less for their education while it gave 
tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country.
  As our Republican colleague, Congressman Jim Jordan, chairman of the 
Republican Study Committee, which is the source of this budget, said on 
Sunday, this legislation basically mirrors the budget proposal that the 
House passed this year. And indeed it does. It is summed up in one 
sentence: it ends Medicare, making seniors pay more, while giving take 
breaks to Big Oil and corporations sending jobs overseas. Furthermore, 
economists believe that the result of this legislation will be the 
result of the loss of 700,000 jobs.
  This legislation harms middle class families. But don't take my word 
for it. Nearly 250 national organizations oppose this legislation, 
saying it would almost certainly necessitate massive cuts to vital 
programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits, 
and lead to even deeper cuts than the House-passed budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I heard the previous speaker say we have to think about 
future generations as we go forward in this debate. Indeed, I agree. 
For that reason, I call young people to my office over and over again, 
and most recently, last week, a large group of college students, some 
just newly graduated, and I said, Your name is used at the table of the 
debt reduction; your name is used at the table that we owe this to 
future generations. I'd like to know from you as a member of the next 
generation, as a leader of the next generation, what do you think about 
what's going on at the debate table, the discussion table in the White 
House? What do you think of that? What values do you want me to bring 
from your generation to that table?
  With great wisdom they talked about the fact that education was 
central to their success and to America's competitiveness now and in 
the future. They talked about jobs. They said, Please don't have the 
cuts in the legislation deter job growth and growth of the economy. 
They said, Please don't harm Medicare and Medicaid, because that's very 
important to our families. In fact, for many of our families, that 
enables them to afford our ability to go to college. We just wouldn't 
make it without that.
  Actually, one other thing they talked about was, We want to share in 
reducing the deficit. We believe that everyone has a responsibility to 
do so, but we want our voices to be heard. And we're concerned with 
voter suppression now around the country and that barriers will be 
thrown up that will hurt our participation in the electoral process. So 
when I went to the White House, I spoke about that.

[[Page 11428]]

  But yesterday I met with high school students, well over a hundred 
high school students. I asked them the same question. They had similar 
answers. They also said, Tell them if they care about the future 
generations, they should care about our education, they should care 
about the budget deficit, they should care about jobs. They should also 
care about the environment, because the condition of the environment is 
important to us.
  But going back to those college students, that day I went into the 
White House and told my colleagues--the President, the Vice President, 
and our Democratic and Republican colleagues--what those college 
students said about education, for example. And then I listened to the 
discussion and I thought, Who is going to tell the children? Who is 
going to tell the children that at this table the suggestion is made 
that young people should spend $36 billion more for interest on their 
student loans so that we can reduce the deficit, but not touch $37 
billion--almost the same number--$37 billion in tax subsidies for Big 
Oil. Who's going to tell the children that that is what the values are 
that are being proposed by the Republicans at that table--$36 billion 
more charged to students, $37 billion as a gift to Big Oil. But don't 
touch that to reduce the deficit.
  It's stunning to me.
  So as we use the name of the next generation and what we owe them and 
what they expect as they come out of school or what they need in order 
to afford school, in some cases that increase in the cost of interest 
payments will make it prohibitive--not more expensive--prohibitive for 
young people to go to school. One young man in high school said to me 
yesterday, I just graduated from high school at the top of my class. I 
had great grades and scores and everything, but I can't afford to go to 
college. I can only go to the community college in my town because I 
can only afford to be close to home and go to a community college. So 
please, in whatever it is you do, don't hurt community colleges.

                              {time}  1820

  Community colleges are wonderful, and they do a great job for our 
country and the education of our children and the training of our 
workers and the rest. I had the privilege of speaking at the graduation 
commencement ceremony at San Francisco Community College last month, so 
I value what they do; but this young man had no choice because the cost 
of other education to him would be prohibitive, and again, because of 
the economic situation, he had to stay close to home.
  So let's listen to these people whose names we use--the next 
generation, the young people. We cannot heap mountains of debt onto 
them. Indeed, we shouldn't. Indeed, we didn't. When President Clinton 
was President, he took the deficit that he'd inherited on a path of 
fiscal soundness. Four of the five of his last budgets were either in 
surplus or in balance. You've heard that over and over again. He took a 
$5.6 trillion trajectory into surplus, only to be reversed by President 
Bush with his tax cuts for the rich, with his giveaways to the 
pharmaceutical industry and by not paying for the wars. He took us on a 
trajectory of a swing of $11 trillion--the biggest fiscal swing in the 
history of our country.
  That's the path we're on.
  I didn't hear anybody on the Republican side say ``boo, boo'' when 
the President was taking us so deeply into debt; and every time, we 
stepped up to the plate and lifted the debt ceiling because that was 
the right thing to do.
  Much has been said, if we don't lift the debt ceiling, as to what 
that means to our economy. We hear sounds from the tables in boardrooms 
about what it will do to the stock market, the credit markets, what it 
will do to the fiscal soundness of our country, our reputation 
overseas--and that's very important. Yet it's not only important what 
is said around the boardroom table; it's important as to what this 
means around the kitchen table for America's working families.
  American families could soon see an increase in their cost of 
mortgages, car loans, credit cards, and student loans. Social Security 
and veterans' checks could be held up. Stock prices, which are 
important to our economy, could fall with a direct hit on families' 
401(k)s, pensions and savings. It would be a job destroyer, heaping 
more economic insecurity on America's families and on the concerns they 
have as to the education of their children, the health of their 
families and the security of their retirements around that kitchen 
table. Rather than making progress on the debt limit to prevent these 
widespread consequences for America's middle class, this legislation 
takes us backward: throwing up further roadblocks to increasing the 
debt limit.
  Mr. Speaker, we still have time to come together in a bipartisan and 
balanced way for a ``grand bargain'' that would ensure our Nation meets 
its obligations while working toward a long-term plan to reduce the 
deficit, create jobs, grow the economy, and strengthen the middle 
class.
  Let us recognize that the best way to reduce the deficit is to get 
the American people back to work. Let us do as the President called 
upon us to do: to out-build, out-educate, out-innovate the rest of the 
world to win the future by creating jobs. Together, we can keep America 
number one.
  I see my distinguished friend from Indiana is here, and I heard his 
one-sentence summation earlier. I won't repeat it, but I'll give you my 
one-sentence summation on this:
  This legislation ends the Medicare guarantee, making seniors pay at 
least $6,000 more while giving tax breaks to Big Oil and corporations 
sending jobs overseas.
  I hope that some of our Republican colleagues will do what they did 
before and vote against this budget plan. A majority of Republicans 
voted against this budget plan when it came to the floor the day of the 
Ryan budget. I call upon all of us to do the right thing for the next 
generation and vote ``no.''
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds only to 
say that the only place where our budget mentions oil is when we say we 
want to drill for more of it in our country. We don't address the tax 
issue. In fact, what we call for is eliminating loopholes to lower tax 
rates. We save Medicare, and guarantee the program is there for people 
55 and above--more importantly, contrary to the current law, which 
takes Medicare away from current seniors as they now know it.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the House Republican 
Conference chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, this Nation suffers from a surplus of 
deficits.
  First, our seniors have a health care deficit because, in the last 
Congress, Democrats cut Medicare by a half a trillion dollars, 
hastening its bankruptcy and then creating a new board, called the 
IPAB, in order to ration the access and quality of their health care.
  Next, they brought us a jobs deficit. Millions are unemployed and 
they remain unemployed--the highest duration of long-term unemployment 
since the Great Depression.
  Then, Mr. Speaker, we have the financial deficit. After the 
President's trillion-dollar stimulus program, which has failed 
miserably, after his $1.4 trillion takeover of our health care system, 
after an increase of base government--24 percent in 2 years and three 
trillion-dollar-plus deficits in a row, we now have a debt crisis. So 
the President says, Do you know what? We need a balanced plan. I want 
you, Republicans, to raise taxes to pay for my spending.
  Mr. President, one of the greatest impediments we have to job 
creation today is the threat of taxes to pay for your spending.
  Every day, I hear from small business people in my congressional 
district. I heard from Kristine Tanzillo of Canton, Texas: ``Washington 
seems to think they can tax its way out of our economic problem, which 
is not possible. We are not hiring or planning to grow for the next 
several years. We are concerned that our government will raise taxes or 
put other burdensome restrictions on us that we will not be 
profitable.''
  The financial deficit is tied to our jobs deficit. The American 
people have a message for their government:

[[Page 11429]]

  It is time to quit spending money we do not have. It is time to quit 
borrowing 42 cents on the dollar, much of it from the Chinese, and then 
sending the bill to our children and grandchildren. It is why, today, 
House Republicans bring to the floor the Cut, Cap, and Balance program.
  Cut. It cuts spending to at least the '08 levels. Who thought that 
government was too small before President Barack Obama came into town?
  Cap. Since World War II, spending has averaged 20 percent of our 
economy. Under this President, it's 25 percent, growing to 40. Let's 
keep it at 20 percent.
  Balance. Every family in America has to balance their budgets around 
the kitchen table. Every small business has to balance their budgets as 
do 49 of the 50 States. But no. Our Democrat colleagues said it is 
radical. It is radical to balance the budget.
  What I say is, if we want jobs, hope and opportunity, we must cut, 
cap, and balance.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I would again remind my colleagues that the last time 
the Federal Government budget was in surplus was during the Clinton 
administration, at a time when they took a balanced approach to deficit 
reduction--unfortunately, one that has been rejected by our colleagues 
in the communications and conversations with the President of the 
United States, who has put forward a proposal for $3 in spending cuts, 
for $1 in revenue, again, generated by closing special interest 
loopholes and by returning to the rates that were in place for the very 
top income earners, rates that were in place during the Clinton 
administration, which was the last time we were in surplus.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to a member of the Judiciary Committee, 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who has been a real leader on 
this debate.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation, and I 
would like to focus my comments on the balanced budget amendment 
because the dirty little secret about the balanced budget amendment is 
that it does not require a balanced budget.

                              {time}  1830

  It will actually make it more difficult for future Congresses to 
balance the budget, so the title is just misleading.
  Let's go through some of the provisions.
  The first provision of the balanced budget amendment requires a 
budget not in balance to require a three-fifths vote in the House and 
the Senate. The fact is every budget that we considered this year--in 
fact, most of the budgets, virtually every budget in the last 10 
years--was not balanced in the first year. So all of those budgets, 
including the Republican Ryan plan, even the Republican Study Committee 
plan, would have required a three-fifths vote to pass in both the House 
and the Senate.
  Now, the deficit reduction requires tough votes, often career-ending 
votes. The 1993 Clinton budget that was on the way to paying off the 
national debt, if we hadn't changed it after 2001, we would have paid 
off the entire debt held by the public. By now, we would owe nothing to 
China, Japan, and Saudi Arabia. But that didn't get three-fifths of the 
vote, and 50 Democrats lost their seats as a result of that plan.
  Likewise, this year's Republican Ryan plan, which repeals Medicare as 
we know it, is a good deficit reduction plan. Didn't get anywhere close 
to three-fifths, and Democrats have already picked up one seat in the 
special election because the Republican candidate supported the 
Republican Ryan plan.
  So deficit reduction requires tough votes, and increasing the votes 
needed to pass it will not help pass a deficit reduction plan.
  Now, while it's harder to pass a deficit reduction plan because of 
the three-fifth's requirement, increasing the deficit can still occur. 
Last December, we passed $800 billion in additional deficits by 
extending the tax cuts. Those still could have been passed under this 
legislation because you only need a simple majority to cut taxes. And a 
budget which even proposes additional tax cuts and even higher deficits 
would require the same three-fifths vote as the tough deficit reduction 
would require.
  Tax cuts can pass by a simple majority, but tax increases will 
require a two-thirds vote. Common sense will tell you that that will 
make it harder to balance the budget.
  The two-thirds provision to spend more than 18 percent of GDP will 
obviously put pressure on Medicare and Medicaid, since we haven't been 
to 18 percent of GDP since Medicare was enacted. You can cut the 
benefits with a simple majority, but to save the programs with 
additional taxes will require a two-thirds vote.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, we know that we should not be distracted by 
misleading titles. We should notice that the legislation will make it 
harder to actually balance the budget because it increases the number 
of Members who might have to cast career-ending votes, makes it 
virtually impossible to raise revenues or close loopholes. It will 
compel deep cuts in Social Security and Medicare, and you can't cure 
that with a simple nice little title.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).
  Mrs. LUMMIS. We don't have to pass this bill to read this bill. We 
know what's in it. It's been online for 72 hours. The American people 
can go read it.
  But in case you haven't read it, let me tell you what it does. It 
caps spending. It caps spending consistent with the discretionary 
spending cuts that we passed in the budget earlier this year. And it 
cuts some mandatory spending in 2012, setting us on the path that 
Moody's and S&P say they need to ensure investors that they can have 
confidence in U.S. treasuries.
  It will create the glide path that Ben Bernanke has told us over and 
over that we need to bring spending under 20 percent of GDP. And it 
will pass a balanced budget amendment, like the vast majority of States 
have. This is the way to implement what we need to raise our debt 
ceiling.
  We know that we cannot default on our debt, so we will raise our debt 
ceiling in a way that Standard & Poor's and Moody's have said they need 
to see in order to assure our borrowers that our currency is valuable, 
that our obligations will be met, and that we are going to get our 
spending under control.
  As the chairman of the House Budget Committee said a few minutes ago, 
when we passed his budget, we passed a plan that would broaden the base 
of taxes and lower the rate, that would not cut Medicare for seniors, 
for people over 55 years of age who aren't yet on Medicare, did not 
touch Social Security, and yet would preserve for the American people 
the decisions that this country was founded on.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I just remind my colleagues that only 
seven States placed both the supermajority requirements and the caps 
that this would place in the Constitution of the United States.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky), who has been a leader and fighter in this debate.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. This Republican bill cuts, caps, and balances all 
right--cuts Medicare, caps Medicaid, balances the budget on the backs 
of seniors. And Republicans like to say that the public supports a 
balanced budget amendment. But when you ask them if they support 
balancing the budget by making cuts to Medicare and Social Security, by 
a 2-1 margin, the American people say ``no.'' And what liberal media 
outlet conducted that poll? Fox News.
  There is something very, very wrong and un-American with the 
Republican proposal that makes it far easier to cut Medicare than to 
cut subsidies for oil and gas companies, easier to cut Social Security 
than ask for one penny more from millionaires and billionaires.
  Of course we need to address our economic challenges, but not by 
holding our country hostage and threatening to not pay our bills with 
catastrophic

[[Page 11430]]

consequences that will hurt every American in order to push an extreme 
agenda that cuts Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
  We have a jobs crisis. We have a disappearing middle class crisis. 
And this illogical bill, which has no chance of becoming law, will make 
things much worse.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama, the chairman of the Financial Services 
Committee, Mr. Bachus.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, we just heard that we were cutting Medicare; 
but, in fact, it was the minority party that cut $500 billion out of 
Medicare last year to pass ObamaCare. How quickly we forget.
  Mr. Speaker, at one time, people stored cash under their mattress for 
safekeeping. Now people all over the world put that same money in 
treasury bills. That benefits every American in countless ways. Let's 
not lose that advantage.
  The imminent threat to the safe haven of treasury bonds and our 
national security is default and downgrade. However, by far, the 
overriding danger is too much government spending. The Federal 
Government must do what every family in America is called on to do at 
times when things are tight. That's cut spending and live within their 
means.
  As long as we ignore our spending problem, the economy will weaken, 
confidence will not be restored, jobs will not be created. We, and more 
profoundly, our children and grandchildren, will bear the costs.
  Earlier, the minority leader said: What will the students say? What 
will the children say?
  Let me say this. When we say to them your money's all gone, we spent 
it, we lacked the courage to address the problems, we didn't confront 
the problems, what will our children say to us? What will our 
grandchildren say?
  The heritage of America has never been ``can't do''; it's always been 
``can do.'' We can do it. We can rise to the challenge. We can answer 
our children and our grandchildren in future years and say we did the 
right thing for you. We did the right thing for our country. We 
confronted the problems.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, what the Democratic leader asked was how 
could we tell the children that we chose to reduce the deficit by 
cutting their ability to afford college rather than cutting subsidies 
for the oil and gas industry? Those are the kind of choices we're 
making. This is not a question about whether to reduce the deficit. 
This is a question about how we do it and what priorities we have. And 
we think it's absolutely the wrong priority to put in the Constitution 
of the United States a preference to cutting education, to cutting 
Medicare as compared to cutting subsidies for special interest 
corporations, special interest tax breaks for the purposes of reducing 
the deficit.
  With that, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Engel).

                              {time}  1840

  Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman.
  I've listened to this debate for a while now. The American people 
want us to compromise. The American people are in the middle. That's 
where most of the American people are. And they don't want extremes 
from either side.
  So what would we do logically to find a solution in the middle to 
close our budget deficit? We would, first of all, cut spending. 
Secondly, we would close tax loopholes to big corporations. And, 
thirdly, we would let those who can afford to pay more, pay more.
  The President has proposed something like this, a $4 trillion 
reduction in the deficit, and the Republicans have refused to do it. 
They refuse to even plug loopholes from Big Oil and Gas.
  So this is where we are now. It takes two to tango. If they're going 
to vote ``no'' on anything that closes tax loopholes, then we have to 
just raise the debt ceiling.
  Now, we voted seven times under President Bush to have a clean debt 
ceiling raised, 28 times under President Reagan to have a clean debt 
ceiling raised, and yet the Republicans won't do it and they bring us 
to the brink of disaster.
  The truth of the matter is we don't need extremes. And, as was 
pointed out here before, this will end Medicare and Medicaid and Social 
Security as we know it because it will make it easier to cut those 
programs than it is to cut subsidies to Big Oil. That is shameful, and 
this should be rejected.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 30 seconds to simply say, I 
think the gentleman threw Social Security in there for good measure in 
the budget. That is assumed. Underneath these caps, it doesn't address 
Social Security. It probably should.
  But, more to the point, Mr. Speaker, guess what ends Medicare as we 
know it? The current law, the President's health care law. It raids 
$500 billion out of Medicare to spend on another program, and then puts 
a board of 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in charge of price 
controlling and, therefore, rationing Medicare for current seniors. 
Medicaid's going bankrupt. If you want these programs to succeed, you 
have to reform these programs.
  Leaders see the problem and fix the problem. That's what we propose 
to do.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).
  Mr. NUNNELEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Today the majority of Americans don't believe that successive 
generations will enjoy the quality of life that they've enjoyed, and a 
lot of that fear is driven by unrestrained Federal Government, 
unrestrained spending, because the majority of Americans understand the 
proverb: The borrower is the slave to the lender.
  Just a few hours ago, Harper Grace Nunnelee entered the world. And 
today, in her honor, her grandfather will cast a vote to secure the 
blessings of liberty for Harper Grace and for her brother, Thomas, and 
for their successive generations yet unborn. And I hope that a majority 
of my colleagues will join me as we vote to cut, to cap, and to 
balance.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I think we would all agree if we saw a 
wasteful spending program, we should cut it for the purpose of reducing 
the deficit. And the question is: If there is a wasteful or unnecessary 
special interest tax loophole, why shouldn't we cut it for the purpose 
of reducing the deficit? Why should we write into the Constitution of 
the United States a provision that says you need two-thirds to cut a 
wasteful tax loophole rather than say let's cut it to reduce the 
deficit for the benefit of our children?
  I would also observe, Mr. Speaker, that the Republican plan, with 
respect to Medicare, would force seniors out of the current Medicare 
system into the private insurance market where the private insurance 
industry would ration their care. They would get a lot less support 
from the Medicare program and yet face much higher costs.
  That is a deal that Members of Congress don't give to themselves, and 
I don't think we should ask seniors to take a deal that Members of 
Congress themselves do not take.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, Americans want jobs. After 200 days of 
Republican power in this House, not one jobs bill. This cut, slash, and 
burn legislation will not work.
  We need an invest, grow, and build strategy. That's what Americans 
want from Congress. They want us to invest in education, invest in 
research, and invest in innovation so that America can remain a leader 
in the global economy. They want us to invest in infrastructure, build 
bridges, highways, clean energy and cut our dependence on foreign oil, 
because when we make it in America, that's when America will make it. 
Americans can make it.
  Cut, yes. What we ought to cut are the Republican giveaways to the 
Big Oil companies, to the Wall Street barons, to the hedge fund 
managers who enjoy massive tax breaks. That's where the cuts ought to 
be. They ought to be cut out.
  And what of this legislation that's before us? We ought to vote 
``no.''

[[Page 11431]]

  Cut what doesn't create jobs for middle class families, like 
Republican giveaways to big oil companies. And save what actually 
works, like innovation to jumpstart new industries and education to 
help middle class people get good jobs.
  I therefore rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, and 
Balance Act. This bill is an extreme version of the Republican budget 
plan that would make permanent the dangerous budgetary and 
constitutional measures that would destroy Medicare and Medicaid, and 
reduce Social Security benefits for those who need them the most. The 
bill would also handicap the government's ability to respond to 
economic downturns and create jobs, and it fails to address some of the 
real drivers our debt--tax breaks for corporations and the rich and 
runaway Pentagon spending, including our misadventures in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  This legislation is an affront to the very principles of this nation. 
In 1961, President John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address said, ``If 
a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the 
few who are rich.'' Unfortunately, it seems that my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle have no regard for this fundamental American 
value, as the bill they have brought to the floor today attempts to 
balance the budget on the backs of those with less for the benefit of 
those with more. It attempts to balance the budget on the backs of 
seniors, by taking away their Medicare benefits. It attempts to balance 
the budget on the backs of the disabled, by taking away their Social 
Security benefits. It attempts to balance the budget on the backs of 
low-income Americans, by taking away their Medicaid. And who stands to 
gain from taking away Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits? 
Special interests and the rich.
  In addition to taking away Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security 
benefits, H.R. 2560 would also subvert the federal government's ability 
to respond to downturns in the economy or special needs including a 
possible national security crisis. During inevitable cyclical 
downturns, it will be necessary to raise the debt limit to stimulate 
growth by cutting taxes and providing unemployment benefits to help 
people get back on their feet if they're laid off, among several proven 
effective measures. Furthermore, in the event of a security threat, we 
have an obligation to act. This bill, including the proposed balanced 
budget constitutional amendment would make it nearly impossible to 
respond to any economic or security crisis.
  At the root of all of this is a system of misguided priorities. My 
Republican colleagues have determined that in order to balance the 
budget, we should prioritize cutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social 
Security benefits, instead of addressing what got us into this current 
deficit--a porous, lopsided tax code designed to make the rich richer, 
and two unnecessary wars, one of which we continue to wage. This bill 
does nothing to end the tax breaks we currently provide for 
millionaires and billionaires, hedge fund managers and oil companies. 
Nor does it address runaway Pentagon spending. Based on CBO's most 
conservative estimates, the DOD alone is projected to spend nearly $300 
billion on the Afghan and Iraqi wars from 2012 through 2015, and 
estimates by Harvard researchers which take into account long-term 
costs like caring for our veterans put the total cost of these wars in 
the trillions. Rather than ending tax breaks for corporations and 
millionaires and billionaires and bringing our troops home from 
Afghanistan, my friends on the other side of aisle want to cut 
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits for those Americans 
who need them.
  I urge my colleagues to see this charade for what it is--an attempt 
to balance the budget on the backs of those with less for the benefit 
of those with more--and vote ``no'' on H.R. 2560.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say, 
I hope the gentleman joins us in supporting our plan, then, because our 
plan says let's get rid of all those tax loopholes. Let's make the tax 
code flatter and fairer. Let's get tax rates down for all Americans and 
for businesses so we can grow our economy.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I will not.
  Here is the deal, Mr. Speaker. When we tax our businesses at higher 
rates than our foreign competitors tax theirs, they win; we lose. Some 
companies utilize loopholes and pay no taxes. Others pay the second-
highest tax rate in the industrialized world.
  Yielding myself 15 more seconds, I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, 
that the goal here is to get rid of all these loopholes so whoever you 
are, no matter what you make, you pay the same amount of tax rates.
  We need to reform this Tax Code so we create jobs. If we simply raise 
taxes, raise spending, borrow more money, we lose jobs. This debt is a 
threat to our current economy, and the Tax Code is a current threat to 
our economy.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New 
York (Ms. Buerkle).
  Ms. BUERKLE. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, and 
Balance Act. This legislation is strong medicine, Mr. Speaker, but it 
is what will cure what ails the American economy.
  For far too long, Washington has overspent, borrowed, and heaped debt 
upon our children and our future children. If we don't make a change 
with cut, cap, and balance now, the American Dream will go away; and 
our children and our grandchildren won't have the opportunities that 
this country has always offered.
  It's time for the Federal Government to get our spending under 
control; and this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is a good first step. It's 
a reasonable plan, far more than we've seen from the Senate or from the 
President. It is the only plan that will cut, cap, and balance, and do 
what we need to do for this economy.
  Mr. Speaker, Washington has a spending problem. It does not have a 
taxing problem.
  I would just remind the Speaker, in December, a Democratic-controlled 
House, a Democratic-controlled Senate, and a Democratic President 
passed a bill to extend the current tax rates because they knew what 
would happen if we raised taxes in an economy as sluggish and as poor 
as this one is right now. Raising taxes is the wrong thing to do for 
this economy and for this country.
  Mr. Speaker, most States have balanced budget amendments. It's time 
for the Federal Government to do the same. This massive spending-
induced debt is crushing the American Dream. We must stand up for the 
American Dream and do what's right for America.
  I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 2560, Cut, Cap, and Balance.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, this certainly is the only plan on the 
table that would insert a provision into the Constitution of the United 
States that makes it easier to cut Medicare and easier to cut Social 
Security than it is to cut subsidies to oil and gas companies or other 
special interests for the purpose of reducing the deficit. We think 
that's a bad idea. That's why it's not part of the President's balanced 
plan to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 to 12 years.

                              {time}  1850

  With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, this bill has a slogan for a title and 
unrealistic nonsense inside. Under this, millions of students would not 
get Pell Grants, and education and related programs would be cut by 
about 25 percent.
  And further, for the third time, yes, the third time, the majority is 
voting today to end Medicare and double health care costs for seniors. 
We shouldn't be surprised that the majority is squeezing out Medicare. 
They never liked it in the first place.
  We shouldn't be surprised that they are reducing education grants. 
They promised they would.
  We shouldn't be surprised that they want to preserve subsidies and 
giveaways to Big Oil and other fat cats because that's been their 
raison d'etre for a century.
  We should be surprised, or at least disappointed, that they want to 
sacrifice America's credit rating and good name. We should be 
disappointed too that they won't allow Congress to get on with the 
work, the hard work, the important work of actually making jobs.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, as previous speakers have said, we 
do not have a revenue problem, and we don't have just a spending 
problem. We have a doing problem.

[[Page 11432]]

  The Federal Government for several decades has expanded beyond our 
core constitutional responsibilities and, in so doing, we have created 
the financial crisis in which we find ourselves today. A balanced 
budget amendment would be a great addition to the Constitution, in 
conjunction with and for the 10th amendment.
  For, indeed, what we refer to as federalism is a solution to our 
problems and the salvation to this country. And this bill before us 
today is an excellent first step on our way to that ultimate salvation.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring the debate 
back to real people, to seniors who've been contacting my office 
sharing their fears, their concerns over inaction in this Congress over 
the debt crisis.
  A widow from San Diego called to ask if she'd get her social security 
check after August 2, the payment she earned working hard for years and 
years. She doesn't know how she's going to pay her Medicare premiums, 
her mortgage, her grocery bills or her prescriptions.
  Our constituents do expect us to work together to solve serious 
problems. Yet we seem to be stringing the American public along here, 
playing games with their futures.
  This legislation was put together in the dark of night and brought 
straight to the House floor. My colleagues didn't hear from one witness 
on its consequences, didn't hold one hearing, and completely bypassed 
the regular legislative process.
  Instead of wasting valuable time on legislation that won't move 
beyond this Chamber, we should focus on forging a bipartisan solution 
to the debt crisis. Let's agree on meaningful and rational solutions 
for the long term before the debt crisis becomes worse.
  We can do one with job creation that won't slash health research, 
innovation, Medicare, Medicaid or education.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, we're broke, and that's really not the 
legacy that I want to leave Micah and Claire, my grandkids.
  More unrestrained spending and tax increases will only slow our 
economy and make our fiscal problems worse. Raising the debt ceiling 
without significant reform is not a solution. It's a gimmick. We have 
to get our spending under control; and Cut, Cap and Balance is a path 
to fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, this year alone the Federal Government will spend twice 
what it spent just 10 years ago, and more than 40 percent of it is 
borrowed money. We will have accumulated more debt in the past 2\1/2\ 
years than we did during the Presidencies of Washington through George 
H.W. Bush. That's right. It took 41 Presidencies to spend what we have 
spent since 2009.
  We've got to stop spending money we don't have. It's causing the 
private sector to sit on the sidelines, take fewer risks, and create 
fewer jobs. And that's what it's all about, isn't it, growing the 
economy, creating jobs?
  The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act automatically saves $111 billion in 
2012 and around $5.8 trillion over the next 10 years. It includes 
enforceable caps on spending that will bring the size of government 
back to below 20 percent of GDP. And the legislation cuts up the 
government's credit cards by passing a balanced budget amendment.
  Cut, Cap, and Balance will create a future of better opportunities 
for our children, Micah and Claire, my grandkids. Washington will 
finally have to do what every American family and every business does 
every day, balance the budget.
  This Saturday, I enjoyed an afternoon of kicking the walnut down the 
street with Claire and Micah, 4\1/2\ and 3 years old, but I don't want 
to kick the can down the road for them.
  I didn't have the guts to tell them that we've already taken their 
tax dollars from them before they're even at the point of going to 
school and ultimately going to work.
  We need to stop our spending now. Cut, cap and balance.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I supported an honest, bipartisan balanced budget 
amendment in 1995. There is no balanced budget amendment in this 
legislation. There is a big dollop of legislative legerdemain and 
blackmail. It simply says that the Republicans will drive the country 
to default unless Congress later passes their right-wing version of a 
balanced budget amendment that requires an impossible two-thirds vote 
to close the most egregious tax loophole, the same loopholes that the 
gentleman from Wisconsin purports to want to close.
  With apologies to Lewis Carroll, ``There's no use trying,'' said 
Alice. ``One can't believe imaginary things.''
  ``I dare say you haven't had much practice,'' said the Queen. ``When 
I was your age I did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I 
believed as many as six imaginary things before breakfast,'' or in this 
case, before dinner and cocktails at the Republican Club.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. May I inquire as to the division of time 
between the two.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). The gentleman from Wisconsin has 
20\1/4\ minutes, and the gentleman from Maryland has 21\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, my reason for coming to the floor today 
is, look, there's already been some wonderful arguments, hopefully on 
our side, talking about cut, cap and balance being a realistic path to 
get there. But I'm here because the political rhetoric seems to lack 
basis in math. So let's have a little fun here.
  How many times today have we already heard the comments about those 
corporate jets? We need to get rid of that depreciation.
  Okay. Time for a little bit of mathematical reality. We borrow $4.7 
billion every year. If we were to eliminate that incentive for those 
corporate jet purchases, fine. But it takes care of 15 seconds of 
borrowing a day. How can 15 seconds of borrowing a day be an honest 
discussion?
  So let's go on to the next one. How many times today have we already 
heard about evil fossil fuels, those subsidies to Big Oil?
  Well, let's do this. If we were to wipe out the subsidies to all 
fossil fuels, it would take care of 2.2 minutes of borrowing a day. 
How's that an honest debate? So we're living in that fantasy world.
  So let's actually go on to one of the other ones, the Bush-Obama tax 
extensions. You know, because how many times do we hear around here, 
oh, it's those millionaires and billionaires. Well, let's do this. What 
would the math be if you got rid of those tax extensions for all 
Americans? It would buy you 28 minutes of borrowing a day, and that's 
assuming you don't slow down the economy, you don't raise unemployment. 
Actually, we use the President's numbers and pretend you get every 
dollar in, 28 minutes a day.
  So think about that. The rhetoric you've heard here for hours 
wouldn't even buy, or would actually only buy one-half an hour of 
borrowing a day.
  So I turn to my brothers and sisters on the left and say, what would 
you like to do with the other 23\1/2\ hours of borrowing every single 
day?

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Again, I would remind my colleagues to do the basic 
math. Go back to the last time the budget of the United States was in 
surplus; it was during the Clinton administration. It followed on some 
very difficult decisions in the early 1990s. And what it included, as 
part of a balanced approach, was asking the folks at the very top to 
pay a little higher rate than they are today. And what the President 
has proposed is to ask those Americans, as part of a shared 
responsibility, to go back to paying those rates.
  And what our colleagues would plant in the Constitution of the United 
States is a supermajority requirement, two-thirds vote, to go back to 
the same tax rates that were in place during the

[[Page 11433]]

Clinton administration, but a majority vote if you want to reduce the 
deficit by cutting benefits for Medicare beneficiaries--whose average 
income, by the way, median income is under $22,000 a year.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Cut, 
Cap and Balance Act, which is nothing more than a politically motivated 
distraction from the ongoing budget negotiations necessary to avoid a 
catastrophic default on our Nation's financial obligations. What we 
need at this challenging time is shared sacrifice.
  The Democrats have called for significant cuts, closing tax 
loopholes, and requiring people in the highest income brackets to pay 
their fair share while Republicans continue to push an unrealistic plan 
that relies exclusively on draconian cuts--on the backs of our seniors, 
on the backs of working families.
  One thing is clear: if we don't reach common ground now, America will 
default on its debt, and that cannot happen. The most dangerous 
provision of this bill is the Republican version of the so-called 
``balanced budget amendment.'' While a balanced budget amendment done 
the right way is worthy of consideration, it must, at a minimum, be 
crafted responsibly and provide flexibility in times of war, recession, 
or national emergency. This bill does not do that.
  We all agree that the budget should be balanced; it needs to be. And 
Congress already has the necessary legislative tools to change its 
fiscal policies, as we witnessed during the era of surpluses under the 
Clinton administration. The challenge lies in our collective abilities 
and individuals' intentions to work together toward a compromise that 
prioritizes programs most beneficial to our economy, cuts trillions in 
spending, and increases revenues from those who can afford it.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute, if we're 
going into recalling history, just to simply say that the ``corporate 
tax loophole'' is a provision that was in the President's stimulus bill 
drafted by Democrats, passed by Democrats, not supported by 
Republicans. The ``oil tax subsidies'' were the result of a bipartisan 
legislation responding to a WTO suit which said that all American 
producers, manufacturers, domestic producers get lower tax rates if 
they produce something in America.
  What the other side is simply saying is, no, let's just raise that 
tax on just oil and gas, not on any other manufacturer, and that is a 
subsidy for oil and gas.
  Mr. Speaker, these provisions are so infinitesimally small, they're 
just fundamentally un-serious. They're just an attempt to score 
political points to try and dodge coming up with solutions to solve the 
problem. We have a debt problem we have to deal with; we have a deficit 
problem we have to deal with. If we don't deal with it, we're going to 
lose more jobs.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).
  Mr. PAULSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it is true that we could, as some of my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle suggest, continue to practice business as 
usual with no plan to control spending. But what will that lead to? 
Higher taxes, more spending, more debt, and fewer jobs. And with our 
country right now at a financial crossroads and unemployment at 9.2 
percent, this is simply a future that we cannot afford. By cutting 
spending now, by capping growth of government, and by requiring a 
balanced budget, we can finally get our fiscal house in order and get 
people back to work.
  American families have tightened their belts in these tough economic 
times; Washington should do exactly the same thing. We need to pass the 
Cut, Cap, and Balance Act so that we can address our spending-driven 
debt crisis, start paying down the national debt, and get our economy 
back on track. This is about protecting the future of our children and 
our grandchildren.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I find it very curious that on the one 
hand our Republican colleagues are saying that the revenues that the 
President has requested as part of a balanced plan are peanuts, that 
they're irrelevant, and on the other hand arguing that somehow if you 
raise those revenues it's going to crush the economy. They're trying to 
have it both ways. The fact of the matter is they are a balanced part 
of an overall approach that talks about reducing our deficit in a 
balanced way. And I go back to the fact that the last time we had that 
balanced approach was the last time that we had Federal budget 
surpluses.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. 
Clarke).
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. I thank my colleague for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has spent over 6 months of the 
American people's time making it abundantly clear what their priorities 
are not. The Republican majority does not have time to address jobs. As 
I stated, we are here over 6 months into the 112th Congress, and we 
have yet to take one vote on a single comprehensive jobs bill.
  The Republican majority does not have time to address the economic 
realities facing millions of homeowners still facing foreclosure. In 
fact, we have voted on Republican bills that further undercut those who 
have lost their homes.
  The Republican majority does not have time to work with the President 
and congressional Democrats to deal with our national debt. They would 
rather protect tax cuts for multi-millionaires and billionaires and tax 
loopholes for corporate interests.
  What the Republican majority does have time for is playing games, 
spending 4 hours debating a bill that, thank God, is dead on arrival in 
the Senate.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  After a 3-year spending spree in which the President drove up the 
national debt 56 percent, he has the nerve to tell the American people 
to eat their peas. After he has been on this supersize-me diet, he 
turns around and tells struggling middle class families how to behave.
  One must ask, where has the President been? He owns this economy. He 
has been in office nearly 3 years; it is his. It's his policies that 
have left 15 million Americans out of work; it's his policies that have 
stifled growth and business investment; it's his policies that have 
created and are continuing these so-called ``tax breaks'' for Big Oil. 
It's his very signature that has extended the Bush tax cuts.
  It's his policies that have given us the highest deficit spending in 
the history of the United States of America. He owns this, not 
President Bush, not Vice President Cheney, not the Republican Party, 
not Halliburton, not all the other straw men that the President likes 
to set up to distract the American people. It was President Obama who 
cut Medicare $562 billion. It was President Obama who set up IPAB, 
which is a health care rationing system which our moms and dads and 
grandparents will have to be suffering under. It was this President who 
took unemployment from 7 percent up to nearly 10 percent.
  And now we're having the debate of the decade, and where is the 
President? We get from him, not a plan, but speeches, finger-pointing, 
rhetoric, vague promises, but no plan. If there is a plan, could you 
lay it on the table? And I'll ask my Democrat friends, do you have a 
plan? We keep hearing the President has a plan. Could you put it on the 
table? I might want to vote for it. I might be interested in reading 
the bill. If there is a plan, could you please put it on the table? 
Just as I thought, there is no plan.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman an extra 15 seconds.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. The gentleman asked a question. Will the gentleman 
yield?

[[Page 11434]]


  Mr. KINGSTON. This is the plan: cut, cap, and balance. And this is 
the President's plan: speeches. That's all we're getting, no 
legislation whatsoever.
  I'll be glad to yield to my friend from Maryland.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well-timed.

                              {time}  1910

  Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman well knows, the President has put on 
the table a balanced approach, $4 trillion in 10 to 12 years, $3 in 
spending cuts to $1 in revenue. In fact, the Speaker of the House and 
the President of the United States, as my colleagues well know, were 
talking about a number of components of that plan. What was very clear 
is our colleagues didn't want to touch it because of this principle 
they have that not $1 from closing a tax loophole or revenue can go for 
the purpose of reducing the deficit.
  We heard a little rewrite of history. Let's just remember that when 
the President of the United States was sworn in, he immediately faced a 
record $1.3 trillion deficit. The guy took office, and it was $1.3 
trillion that he inherited. And 700,000 jobs were going down the tubes 
every month. It took a little while to turn things around, and things 
are still very, very fragile.
  What would be a huge mistake is to go back to the same trickle-down 
on steroids policy that got us into this mess to begin with, because we 
know how the movie ended at the end of the Bush administration. They 
left this administration with a pile of debt, an economy that was 
falling through the floor. We need to work together to fix this 
problem. But taking the position that you're going to prevent the 
United States from paying its bills unless you implant in the 
Constitution a provision that says it is easier to cut Social Security 
and Medicare than cut corporate tax loopholes to reduce the deficit is 
not going to fly with the American people.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey), the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. A poll completed by Gallup just 3 
days ago basically showed what Democrats have been saying all along--
Americans want their Congress to come together to tackle our debt level 
with a responsible program of spending cuts and new revenues.
  Here is what the poll said: 80 percent of all voters want the 
Democrats and Republicans to come together on spending cuts and tax 
increases; 77 percent of Independents, even 74 percent of Republicans 
agree. CBS has a very similar poll.
  But what the Republicans are saying is we're not going to pay 
attention. The Republicans are suffering from deficit attention 
disorder. They've spent their time in power paying attention to 
everything but the deficit. They have deficit attention disorder. They 
extended massive Bush tax cuts for the rich. They voted to support 
billions in subsidies to the most profitable oil companies. They ran up 
trillions in debt to finance two wars; allowed Wall Street to run wild 
with deregulation and smash our economy onto the rocks, but they only 
want to focus on the deficit when it means ending Medicare, when it 
means shrinking Social Security. They only want to focus on the deficit 
when they can still protect billionaires and protect big business, Big 
Oil.
  The Republicans have political amnesia. They controlled the Congress 
for 12 years. President Bush controlled the Presidency for 8 years. 
They are the ones that ran up this huge deficit on their watch. And now 
what are they saying? They're saying pass a constitutional amendment 
before we win the Presidency again so we stop us from killing the 
economy again. Pass a constitutional amendment that doesn't let us do 
it again with a Republican President, with 12 years of controlling the 
House and the Senate.
  They want to leave America on the brink of becoming a deadbeat debtor 
to the world because they are irresponsible, ignoring what the American 
people are screaming at them: work together as parties; have deficit 
reductions and revenue increases and tax increases on billionaires. But 
the Republicans refuse to come together. They refuse to ensure that not 
just grandma having a shrinking of her Medicare benefit, kids losing 
their Pell Grants, but also billionaires are at the table if this is 
such an Armageddon level of financial crisis facing our country.
  But they are tied. They are tied back to the Tea Party. They are tied 
back to those who have tethered them to a policy that does not allow 
them to escape their deficit attention disorder.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).
  Mr. DOLD. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding.
  We did hear some rhetoric on the other side that basically said we do 
have a plan, that the President has laid out a plan; it's clear. Well, 
frankly, the CBO--the Congressional Budget Office--has taken a look at 
that to say we can't score speeches. This is a very serious time. We do 
need to talk about a big, bold plan to put ourselves and our country 
back on the right course.
  We just heard some rhetoric talking about how this was the deficit 
that the Republicans had run up. Let me tell you, yes, the Republicans 
have had some deficit spending. This is a bipartisan issue. Washington 
has a spending problem. We are spending $1.6 trillion this year of 
money we don't have; 42 cents of every single dollar that we are 
spending is borrowed.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm a small business owner. I employ just under 100 
people. For me, that's 100 families. These are families that are living 
paycheck to paycheck. If I ran my business like the Federal Government 
is run today, I would be out of business inside the month. It is 
frankly irresponsible the way that this country is being run right now. 
We have to talk about tightening our belt. We cannot continue to spend 
the way that we have been spending and expect that we're going to get 
jobs. This is about jobs and the economy. We have to make sure that 
we're providing more certainty because I can tell you I have received 
phone calls from constituents and from business owners back in my 
district. There are 650 manufacturers in the 10th District of Illinois. 
They do need to have some certainty before they are going to invest 
back in their business and create additional jobs.
  We cannot be looking at trillions of dollars in deficit spending and 
expect that this is going to be a jobs plan. We have to tighten our 
belt. The American public has tightened their belt. American families 
are living under a balanced budget in their own right. American 
businesses are doing the same. They should expect that their Federal 
Government should also live within their means.
  There is no question that this is a very serious time. We are not 
going to become a deadbeat debtor. The way I tell my constituents back 
home, it is like purchasing a business. We think we have the best 
business in the world in the United States of America. And yes, it has 
got some debt, which we are obligated to pay. But we have to 
restructure how that business is taking on that debt if we are serious 
about wanting to reform it for next generations.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it does not encourage certainty or 
confidence in the markets or anywhere else for one party to say that if 
they don't get the budget their way, they're going to prevent the 
United States from paying its bills. That sends a terrible message. 
American families don't have the luxury of saying that they're not 
going to pay their bills.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Clarke).
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask this Congress to cut and 
cap the true debt that is crushing Americans right now, robbing them of 
any financial security and killing off jobs. I'm asking this Congress 
to take certain mortgage loans, cut those mortgage principals and cap 
them to current home value. Let's do that. That will help people who 
are underwater right now on their mortgages.

[[Page 11435]]

  Let's cut, cap, and forgive certain student loans so Americans won't 
have to spend a lifetime repaying back on their education. You see, 
when you give Americans more money by eliminating their personal debt, 
they'll be able to save more and invest more and responsibly spend 
more. That's how you create jobs, the most powerful way. To get this 
economy engaged again is to help Americans become free of personal 
debt.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney), a member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. MULVANEY. ``The fact that we are here today to debate raising 
America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means 
that the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of 
bad choices today on to the backs of our children and grandchildren. 
American has a debt problem and a failure of leadership, and Americans 
deserve better.''
  I wish I could take credit for that one, Mr. Speaker, but I can't 
because that was President Obama in 2006.
  I also wish I could take credit for: ``I'm willing to take down 
domestic spending to the lowest percentage of our overall economy since 
Dwight Eisenhower.''
  I wish I could take credit for that. That was the President last 
week.
  Finally, I wish I could take credit for the claim that the President 
is offering a comprehensive program to force us to live within our 
means. This is supposedly a $4 trillion reduction in spending, four 
thousand billion dollars that in all actuality only cuts spending $2 
billion next year. Talk is cheap in this town, Mr. Speaker; it is time 
to match actions and words. It is time to act on the spending 
difficulty that we have and to pass Cut, Cap, and Balance tonight.

                              {time}  1920

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me just quote from a letter:
  ``Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would 
have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and on the 
value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill-afford to 
allow such a result. The risks, the costs, the disruptions, and the 
incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion, that we must pass 
legislation to raise the debt ceiling.''
  President Ronald Reagan.
  Now, there's legislation floating around here that creates this 
delusion, into thinking that somehow we can get to that date and it's 
all made up, that Secretary Geithner cooked the books, and there's 
legislation that says, you know what, let's pay the Government of China 
and other creditors before we pay our troops, before we pay our Social 
Security beneficiaries.
  What Moody's, what Standard & Poor's, what the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce and others are telling us is, you can't decide to pay your 
mortgage but not your car payment. If the United States is not 
fulfilling its obligations to pay for what it has already bought, as 
Ronald Reagan said, that would have catastrophic consequences.
  That is why it's so dangerous to take the position that somehow 
unless in the next couple of weeks we pass a constitutional amendment 
that would make it easier to cut Medicare and Social Security than cut 
subsidies for the purpose of reducing the deficit, if we don't do that, 
we're not going to allow the United States to pay its bills, and the 
economy, as President Reagan said, would go straight downhill.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Who are you kidding?
  Cut, slash, and burn. You bypassed your own rules to bring it to the 
floor. You say it protects Medicare. It destroys Medicare. You say 
you're protecting jobs. You'll cost hundreds of thousands of jobs if 
this ever saw the light of day in law.
  It disinvests in education, R&D, and infrastructure in this country. 
That equals unilateral disarmament when it comes to global competition 
and innovation, and we might as well hand it over to our competition in 
Brazil, China, and India.
  Shame on you. I urge the defeat of this phony bill.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to 
yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, the chairman of the 
Government Reform Committee, Mr. Issa.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, for more than an hour, I've listened to floor 
debate, and it seems like one side wants to say that we have to cut and 
the other side says that any cut we do is wrong. One side says we have 
to do tax increases. The other side says no.
  What the American people need to hear, Mr. Speaker, is we now spend 
almost a quarter of every dollar produced in our economy, and as my now 
deceased father-in-law would have said, Taxes are rocks in your 
knapsack. The American people cannot afford to have more and more 
weight on the economy.
  This is not an argument about how much we spend. This is an argument 
about what the American people can afford in overhead that ultimately 
hurts our competitiveness in jobs big and small, foreign and domestic.
  So I will be voting for this and every other initiative that can 
possibly give the American people a fighting chance to compete for 
good-paying jobs here and in competition with the rest of the world.
  I urge the support of the bill.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, again, the President's proposal, which 
mirrors the framework of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission, says 
we'll do $3 in cuts with $1 in revenue. It's shared responsibility to 
reducing our deficit so that our economy in the future can grow. Let's 
make sure that we don't do anything now that will hurt the fragile 
economy.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).
  Mr. PETERS. I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2560.
  Since taking office, I have fought for greater fiscal responsibility 
in Washington. I have voted against hundreds of billions of dollars in 
new spending. And today there is a new bipartisan consensus that a 
comprehensive deficit reduction plan is a national priority.
  Unfortunately, Republicans are squandering this opportunity. Rather 
than a balanced approach, they are pursuing a radical agenda that will 
force our Nation's seniors and middle class to sacrifice while letting 
millionaires and special interests keep their tax breaks and loopholes.
  Let us be clear: A vote for this bill is a vote for drastic cuts to 
Medicare and for putting teachers, firefighters, and police all over 
our country out of work. Republicans need to stop playing games with 
our economy and start working for what the American people want: 
comprehensive deficit reduction that shares the burden, strengthens 
Medicare and Social Security, ends tax giveaways for the well-
connected, and puts our country on a path to financial security. This 
bill fails to address these needs and should be defeated.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to 
simply say, if we're talking balance, let's remember the fact that a 
big tax increase is already coming in current law.
  Let's remind ourselves of the fact that in 2013, you have $800 
billion in taxes with the health care law. The President is promising 
another $700 billion in tax increases. We've got a $1.5 trillion tax 
increase coming, hitting small businesses square in the bottom line. 
It's putting a chilling effect on jobs, and in the interest of balance, 
they want to put more tax increases on top of that.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Canseco).
  Mr. CANSECO. Once again, in the debate over our Nation's fiscal 
future, the House of Representatives is leading. I commend my 
colleagues for bringing forward a solution to cut, cap, and balance the 
Federal budget. Together, these will help ensure that it is the Federal 
budget that will be restrained and not the family budget.

[[Page 11436]]

  Regrettably, I cannot vote for this bill. I do so not because I have 
any issue with cut, cap, and balance. I strongly support that part of 
the bill. What I cannot support is that this bill fulfills President 
Obama's request to raise the amount of debt that will be borne by 
American taxpayers by over $2 trillion. Every American household's 
share of our national debt is already at $120,000, and President Obama 
has asked this House to add an additional $20,000 per household to that 
burden.
  It is regrettable that President Obama has asked Congress to raise 
the Nation's debt ceiling and allow more debt to be thrust upon 
American taxpayers in order to pay for the spending binge he embarked 
upon over the past 2 years.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 8\1/2\ 
minutes, and the gentleman from Maryland has 8\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank my friend from Maryland.
  Well, they're right about something. This is cut, cap, and balance. 
Except that it cuts at the middle class, it caps Medicare, and it 
balances budgets on the backs of seniors. That is the fundamental 
difference between them and us, Mr. Speaker.
  Look. We agree that our debt is unsustainable, and that we've got to 
tighten our belts. We've got to reduce spending. We believe that we 
need to balance our budget through a balanced combination of spending 
cuts and revenue increases, and we've got to grow our economy.
  But here's what this budget says. It says to a constituent of mine 
living in Deer Park, New York, that if you're a middle class family and 
you want to send your child to college, to Suffolk Community College, 
you pay more for your Pell Grant. You pay more for tuition. If you are 
a worker in Huntington who just lost a job because the corporation that 
you are working for outsourced your job to China, you watch your 
unemployment insurance be capped or cut. But if you're a millionaire 
making over $1 million a year, you get a $100,000 tax cut. That's not 
cut, cap, and balance. It is an assault on the middle class, and it is 
an assault on fairness.
  Mr. Speaker, the middle class has always been the backbone of our 
economy, and this legislation is a kick in the stomach to the middle 
class. They tell us that they want to cut spending. They will not cut 
spending when it comes to tax loopholes. They will increase it. They 
will not cut spending when it comes to those $4 billion in oil company 
subsidies. They will increase it. They will not cut spending when it 
comes to special interest tax preferences. They will increase it. But 
when it comes to the middle class, they want them to pay more.
  Mr. Speaker, the real cut, cap, and balance should be this: We ought 
to cut those tax loopholes, we ought to cap those tax subsidies, and we 
ought to balance this budget through the right and smart kinds of 
spending reductions and revenue increases that are fair.
  I thank the gentleman for his time.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Utah, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. 
Chaffetz.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Routinely, the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, 
has made the allegation that the President has offered a balanced plan. 
I would argue that he has offered neither. The President has never 
introduced a balanced plan. He's never had anything that's in balance. 
In fact, the budget that he submitted never balances. In fact, it 
doubles and then triples the debt. It went before the United States 
Senate, and 97-0 that budget was rejected, rejected by the United 
States Senate. So to suggest that he's offered something in balance is 
not true.
  The second part of this, he has not introduced a plan to deal with 
this crisis that we're in. There is no piece of paper. There's lots of 
speeches. There are lots of things like going out and doing press 
conferences. But we need a solution.
  What cut, cap, and balance does is it not only solves the short-term 
problem--it starts to put us in the right pathway--but it actually 
sends it to the States. And, ladies and gentlemen, what should we be 
afraid of? All we're asking to do is put forward a balanced budget 
amendment and send it to the State with a very high threshold, where 
three out of four States would have to ratify it in order for it to 
become an amendment to the Constitution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. We keep spending money that we don't have. Every time 
we look at a decision, we have to understand we're asking to pull money 
out of somebody's pocket and give it to somebody else. Those days are 
gone.
  I came to Washington, D.C., to change the way we do business. Cut, 
cap, and balance will do that. We need a balanced budget amendment. The 
choice is clear: Are you in favor of a balanced budget or not? That's 
what's before us today, and that's the direction this country needs to 
go to get its fiscal house in order.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I have no further requests for time, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. I'd like to take time out for just a minute and go back 
to the question I'm hearing most people in America ask about, which is 
jobs. And one of the things we keep hearing from the other side is that 
asking ethanol producers to give up their subsidy or asking 
corporations to give up their special loopholes is a job-destroying 
idea.
  Please, before you cast this vote, all Members look at these facts. 
In 2001, and again in 2002, we did what the majority says endlessly 
they want to do--cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans. The economy 
produced zero net private sector jobs between 2001 and 2008.
  In 1993, President Clinton did the opposite of what the majority says 
it wants to do. He made a modest increase in the tax rate of the 
wealthiest Americans. The economy produced 23 million new private 
sector jobs.
  The House deserves the facts in going forward in this debate, and the 
American people deserve a real jobs plan from this House.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I'll end where we started today, which is to say that 
our Republican colleagues are playing a very dangerous game with the 
economy and with jobs. What this legislation before us says is that 
unless we graft onto the Constitution a preference for their way of 
addressing the budget deficit, unless we do that, they will prevent the 
United States from paying its bills, with all the terrible economic 
consequences for American families.
  So let's see what it is that they're demanding in exchange for 
letting the economy go. It's the same old plan that we saw in the House 
before. It does end the Medicare guarantee, it slashes Medicaid, it 
cuts education, and it protects special interest tax loopholes. But 
what makes this particularly egregious, what should, I think, upset 
every American, is they're trying to engineer those changes through the 
Constitution.
  We keep hearing this is just a plain old balanced budget amendment; 
49 out of 50 States have it. Not true. This would put into the 
Constitution of the United States, embed in our Constitution, a 
provision that makes it easier to cut Medicare or Social Security or 
education, a 50 percent vote; but if you want to cut a special interest 
tax loophole--I don't care whether it's oil and gas subsidies, 
corporate jet, you name it--that a lot of Washington lobbyists work 
overtime to get inserted into our Tax Code and which amounts to 
spending through the Tax Code, if you want to do that, you need a two-
thirds vote.
  They put another mechanism into the Constitution. They would make it 
unconstitutional to balance the budget if we're having expenditures at 
the rate of 19 or 20 percent of GDP, according to the provision that 
came out of their amendment. In other words, the American people cannot 
choose a level of expenditures that would allow us to meet

[[Page 11437]]

our obligations under Medicare and Social Security. Since 1966, our 
Federal expenditures have been above 18 percent of GDP; in other words, 
since we enacted Medicare. So they want to prevent us by constitutional 
fiat from balancing the budget at a higher level of expenditures.
  Let me make one last point on Medicare, because we've heard about the 
Democrats cut $500 billion. What we did was we eliminated the 114 
percent subsidy that was going to Medicare Advantage plans. We did do 
that. And, you know what? Republicans say, What a terrible thing. But 
if you look at their budget, they assume that change. They keep that 
change. What they don't do is what we did, which was to use the savings 
to close the prescription drug doughnut hole. The Republican budget 
would immediately reopen that doughnut hole. So they took the savings 
that they're complaining about, but they didn't use any of it to close 
the doughnut hole.
  Again, the fundamental question is this. We all understand that we've 
got to reduce the deficit. We've got to bring the budget into balance. 
The question is how we choose to do that. And why would we implant into 
the Constitution a mechanism that stacks the deck in favor of choosing 
to cut Medicare and Social Security and education over choosing to cut 
corporate tax loopholes or asking the folks at the very top to pay 
more? But they would do that to our Constitution.
  The Founders made it difficult to change the Constitution for good 
reason. This, I believe, is a corruption of the constitutional process, 
because it would place these mechanisms into our founding document that 
essentially graft the Republican budget plan into that document. And 
that's what this vote is all about.
  And what they're saying is that unless two-thirds of the House and 
two-thirds of the Senate adopt that kind of constitutional amendment, 
we're not going to pay our bills, bills which the Speaker of the House 
and the majority leader and people on both sides of the aisle should 
pay because they are the consequence of decisions that were made by 
this body. And right or wrong, when you bring up a bill, you can't say 
you're not paying for it. And if we take the position that we're not 
going to pay for it, the economy will suffer, interest rates will go 
up. That will hurt every American family, and it will make it harder 
for us to reduce the deficit.
  So let's come together around a balanced plan. The President's put a 
proposal on the table: $4 trillion over 10 to 12 years, patterned after 
the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission; $3 in cuts, $1 in revenue. 
Let's take a balanced approach. That's the way we did it the last time 
our budget was in surplus.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, here's our problem. We have a 
crushing burden of debt that is coming to hit our economy. This is what 
it all comes down to. We are driving our country and our economy off of 
a cliff. The reason is because we are spending so much more money than 
we have.

                              {time}  1940

  We can't keep spending money we don't have. Forty-two cents out of 
every dollar coming out of Washington--it's borrowed money. Let's take 
a look at where it's coming from. We're borrowing it, 47 percent of it, 
from other countries--China number one. Mr. Speaker, you can't have 
sovereignty, self-determination as a country, if we are relying on 
other governments to cash-flow half of our deficit.
  This is where we are.
  Here is the problem we have right now, Mr. Speaker. We have a 
leadership deficit. I keep hearing about the President has got a plan; 
the President is offering balance. The President hasn't offered a thing 
yet--nothing on paper, nothing in public. Leaning on reporters at press 
conferences is not leadership. Giving speeches, according to the CBO, 
is not budgeting.
  The President did inherit a tough problem--no two ways about it. What 
did he do with this problem? He drove us deeper into debt: $1 trillion 
of borrowed money for stimulus that was promised to keep unemployment 
below 8 percent, that went up to 10, and now it's at 9.2; a stalled 
economy; a budget the President gave us that doubles the debt in 5 
years and triples it in 10 years.
  That's not leadership.
  What has the other body done in the Senate, our partners on the other 
side of the aisle? Mr. Speaker, it has been 811 days since they 
bothered trying to pass a budget. Congress has gone for 2 years without 
a budget.
  What did we do when we assumed the majority? We passed a budget. We 
wrote a budget. We did it in daylight, not in the backroom. We drafted 
it. We brought it through the committee. We had amendments. We brought 
it to the floor. We debated it and we passed it.
  That is what we've done.
  When you take a look at our problem, Mr. Speaker, you have to address 
what is driving our debt. Here are just the cold, hard facts: 10,000 
people are retiring every day. The baby boomers are here, and we're not 
ready for them. Far fewer people are following them into the workforce. 
Health care costs are going up four times the rate of inflation. The 
Congressional Budget Office is telling us Medicare goes bankrupt in 9 
years. Medicaid is already bankrupting our States. These are the 
drivers of our debt. By the year 2025, three programs--Social Security, 
Medicaid, Medicare--plus our interest, consume 100 percent of all 
Federal revenues. By the end of this decade, 20 percent of our revenues 
goes to just paying interest.
  This is unsustainable.
  So what does our budget do? What does the document that we passed 
that shows leadership on this issue do?
  It saves these programs.
  For Medicare, we say you're already retired if you're retired. If 
you're about to retire, we don't want to pull the rug out from under 
you. You organized your life around these programs, so let's keep it as 
is; but in order to cash-flow that commitment, in order to make good on 
that promissory note, you have to reform it for the next generation. 
Let's do it in a way that looks like the commission that President 
Clinton offered, a system that resembles the one we have as Members of 
Congress: where we get to choose the plans that meet our needs, where 
we don't subsidize wealthy people as much, and where we subsidize low-
income and sick people a whole lot more. That's what a ``safety net'' 
is.
  We fix it and we save Medicare.
  What does the law do that the President does? It raids a half a 
trillion dollars from Medicare. It puts a new board in charge of price 
controlling and rationing care to current seniors, and it does nothing 
to save it from bankruptcy.
  These are the issues that have got to be dealt with.
  Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing about balance. We keep hearing about the 
need to raise taxes as we cut spending $3 for $1 or something to that 
effect. The red line shows Congressional Budget Office projections on 
spending. The green lines are taxes. Basically, what this says is there 
is no way you can tax your way out of this problem. We asked the 
Congressional Budget Office. If we tried to do that--have balance, 
raise taxes--the tax rates on the next generation would be this:
  The lowest income tax bracket that lower income people pay, which is 
10 percent now, goes to 25 percent. Middle-income taxpayers would pay a 
66 percent rate. The top tax rate, which is what all those successful 
small businesses that create most of our jobs pay, would go to 88 
percent. That's according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's 
the path we're on right now.
  This is unsustainable.
  What is needed is leadership, and the reason we're talking about this 
debt limit increase is that we've seen none--none from the President, 
none from the other body. So, if we're not going to have a budget 
process, how on Earth are we going to get spending under control so we 
can solve this problem?
  Our budget, this cap and this cut, gets the debt paid off. It puts us 
on a

[[Page 11438]]

path to prosperity. It closes loopholes to lower tax rates to grow 
jobs. It says that the genius of America is the individual, is the 
business, not our government. It maintains the American legacy of 
leaving the next generation better off, and we know, without a shadow 
of a doubt, we are leaving the next generation worse off. In the good 
old days of 2007, we used to say that this debt was a threat to our 
children and our grandchildren.
  Not so anymore.
  It is a threat to our economy today.
  Pass Cut, Cap, and Balance. Save this country. Grow the economy. Save 
the Nation for our children and our grandchildren.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, today I will cast my vote in support of H.R. 
2560, the Cut, Cap and Balance Act of 2011, despite having concerns 
about it. With the August 2 deadline for reaching a solution on our 
debt crisis fast approaching, I believe this measure is necessary in 
order to move the process forward.
  However, I remain opposed to key provisions in H.R. 2560 and will 
continue to work vigorously for better solutions. My primary concern 
with this legislation is the requirement for a balanced budget 
amendment to the constitution. In 1995, I voted in favor of a balanced 
budget amendment. That effort ultimately failed in the Senate by a 
single vote. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that that was 
the right outcome. Just two short years later, we proved that we could 
balance the budget without altering our most inspired founding 
document.
  What's more, the State of California has proved the futility of 
balanced budget amendments for years. Despite a constitutional mandate 
for balanced budgets, California persistently fails to live within its 
means and spend the taxpayers' money prudently and effectively.
  Exercising our Article 1, Section 7 power of the purse with 
responsibility and discipline doesn't take a constitutional amendment. 
It simply takes the will to do the right thing.
  We have already accomplished something that seemed impossible just a 
few months ago: we have fundamentally altered the conversation here in 
Washington. While the last two Congresses presided over an 82% increase 
in non-defense discretionary spending, we have already halted and 
reversed the growth in spending.
  Now we are on the brink of enacting trillions--that's trillions with 
a ``T''--in spending cuts. While a final deal remains elusive, we have 
forged consensus on the central, fundamental point that no rise in the 
debt ceiling can be enacted without trillions in spending cuts. That is 
a tremendous achievement that seemed barely conceivable a short time 
ago. It is a testament to what can be achieved when we have the will 
and resolve to confront the great challenges we face.
  We must now put that will and resolve toward a final deal that will 
not only make trillions in spending cuts, but also enact meaningful 
reforms that put us on the path to eliminating the deficit, paying down 
our debt and fostering growth and opportunity. These solutions are 
within reach. They are closer than they've been in years. The only 
question is whether we have the will to achieve them. I urge my 
colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, to come together. To rise 
to the enormous challenges we confront and forge a deal that not only 
restores the vitality and solvency of our economy for ourselves, but 
for generations to come.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion before 
us. While I embrace the principles of cut, cap and balance, the motion 
does not go far enough in fundamentally restructuring the way 
Washington spends taxpayer dollars. The principles found in this bill 
are a step in the right direction toward the fundamental restructuring 
we need in the way Washington spends taxpayer dollars.
  Along with cutting spending, putting in place enforceable spending 
caps that put us on a path to balance and passing a balanced budget 
amendment, we must also repeal and defund Obamacare.
  We must remember that Obamacare is the largest spending and 
entitlement program in our nation's history. That means, at a time when 
we can least afford it, President Obama added to our spending problem 
by the trillions. Without its repeal, we cannot have real economic 
reform.
  At a time of trillion-and-a-half-dollar deficits and 9.2 percent 
unemployment--it was jaw-dropping to hear the President say this past 
Friday that we need only ``modest adjustments'' to fix our economy, and 
to suggest that 80% of the American people want a balanced approach, 
meaning tax increases, to solve our debt problems.
  President Obama also said ``we don't need a constitutional amendment 
to do our jobs.'' But we have the problems we do because Washington 
hasn't been doing its job. And a Balanced Budget Amendment would have 
kept President Obama from adding more than 4 trillion to our national 
debt.
  The current negotiations over the debt ceiling illustrate exactly 
what is wrong with Washington.
  We should not continue to spend and borrow trillions that we don't 
have just because that's always the way politicians have done things in 
the past. Those days are over.
  The American people have had enough.
  The President needs to stop scaring our military and stop threatening 
default. Last Wednesday, I co-authored a bill that would remove default 
as an option and guarantee that our military was paid first. We can 
meet our obligations, keep our bond rating and keep our promises, but 
we have to make the tough choices now to turn our economy around and 
put Americans back to work.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of 
H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap and Balance Act, which is common-sense 
legislation that will bring our fiscal house back in order, and will 
finally get our government off its spending binge.
  We can no longer operate on a business as usual mentality, and the 
time to rein in our deficit spending is now. Families sit down and make 
budgets--then they spend within their means. It is imperative, now more 
than ever, that Congress abide by those same principles. Instead of 
applying for new credit cards, we need to cut up the ones we already 
have. I have long argued that our spending practices in Washington are 
unsustainable, and have routinely voted against spending measures in 
Democratic and Republican-led Congresses that have contributed to the 
crisis we face today.
  Since Republicans retook control of the House in January, we have 
changed the discussion in Washington from how much more are we going to 
spend, to how much are we going to cut. There are some who feel that 
our problem is not our spending; rather, it is we are not bringing in 
enough revenue. I find this thought process misguided. It is not viable 
to increase taxes drastically enough to bridge the $1.58 trillion gap 
between our spending and revenues, without destroying jobs and damaging 
our already struggling economy.
  The Cut, Cap and Balance Act is a plan to bring long-term change to 
the Washington spending machine. First, this legislation would cut 
spending by $111 billion in fiscal year 2012, reducing non-defense 
discretionary spending below 2008 levels, which was called for in the 
House-passed budget plan. Second, this legislation would place a cap on 
total spending as a share of GDP. Without caps on spending, future 
Congresses will ultimately resort back to the spending practices that 
have led to the situation we are currently facing. Third, this 
legislation will only provide for an increase in the debt limit if 
Congress sends a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment to the states 
for ratification. A Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution would 
legally force our government to live within its means. It's interesting 
to see that while many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
including our President, have argued that a constitutional amendment is 
not necessary, 49 states currently abide by some form of a balanced 
budget requirement.
  We cannot pass the financial burdens of our country on to our 
children and grandchildren. It is important to note, that while I am 
not proud of the spending habits of Republicans when we were in charge, 
the unprecedented spending increase since 2009 when President Obama 
took office needs to be noted. Under his leadership, our national debt 
has increased by $3.7 trillion. Once again, that is $3.7 trillion in 
only two and a half years. It took the U.S. from 1776 until 1992 to 
accumulate the same amount of debt that President Obama accumulated in 
two and a half years.
  Given our fiscal challenges that lay ahead, the time to act is now. 
The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act is an important step to bring fiscal 
sanity back to Washington. We can no longer continue to kick the can 
down the road hoping that someone else will make the tough choices. I 
strongly support passage of this important legislation, and urge my 
colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, America is in crisis mode today. We are up 
against a deadline to increase our nation's $14.3 trillion debt limit 
to meet its financial obligations.
  There was initial hope some weeks ago that with the president finally 
leading the talks with Republican and Democratic leaders in the House 
and Senate, we would see a plan to reverse the spending spiral. But 
we've been waiting and waiting and watching and watching for that puff 
of white smoke to come over

[[Page 11439]]

the White House to signal to the American people that their government 
leaders have come together and agreed on a plan and disaster has been 
averted. Regrettably, we still wait as the debt clock ticks toward the 
nation's default.
  What has been so frustrating to me to watch over the past months is 
that everyone knows that our country is awash in red ink, everyone 
knows that our country is spending and borrowing too much, everyone 
knows that entitlement spending is unsustainable, everyone knows that 
job creation is stagnant with unemployment today hovering around 9 
percent. I've been sounding this alarm for five years.
  Everyone knows all this and yet here we are today without the 
president, who has been leading the debt negotiations, putting pen to 
paper on a plan for all to see. But the House today is saying to the 
American people that we can't continue to sit around and wait as our 
debt grows and the risk of national decline and a downgrading of our 
nation's credit rating become visible over the horizon.
  The House today has a plan before it. The majority Republicans are 
offering the Cut, Cap and Balance plan. It reduces spending now, caps 
future spending and says we must balance our budget. Is it a perfect 
plan? No. I don't agree with all the numbers and the priorities. There 
are changes I would make and different policies I would include.
  But we are at the point today that we cannot allow the perfect to 
become the enemy of the good. We have to lay down a marker, move the 
process forward and continue to work for a balanced plan to put America 
on a path to financial responsibility.
  As we listen to some call for a plan that includes more ``revenue,'' 
I want to be clear that I don't support raising taxes on American 
families. I believe any responsible plan must take a look at reforming 
and simplifying the tax code to allow hard-working Americans to keep 
more of their own money and to spur individual savings and small 
business job creation.
  A balanced plan also must look at the reasons that have allowed the 
ethanol industry to become one of the most subsidized industries in the 
United States and other businesses to flourish because of direct 
spending through earmarks in the tax code. We must also look at certain 
tax earmarks and expenditures on the books which allow entities, such 
as General Electric, to not only owe no federal taxes, but to also 
claim a multimillion dollar tax benefit.
  I also believe a balanced plan must include a mechanism to force 
Congress and the president to live within our nation's means. That's 
why I have long supported a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution.
  As I mentioned earlier, I have been trying to get the attention of 
Congress and past and present administrations on the debt crisis facing 
our country. My message has been simple: If America continues on its 
debt and deficit track, we edge closer and closer to the financial 
cliff and cede our standing as the world's leading nation.
  I have called for a bipartisan solution that puts all options on the 
table and fully addresses ways to reverse our current deficit spending 
track and also our nation's unfunded obligations, which are the real 
drivers of our debt. This includes all entitlements--Social Security, 
Medicare, and Medicaid--and other mandatory spending, defense spending, 
discretionary spending, and tax policy, namely the closing of tax 
loopholes and tax earmarks.
  The Bowles-Simpson commission offered a plan with everything on the 
table, and I was anxious to have the chance to vote on it, but the 
president, as did the Congress, walked away from the report last 
December of the very group he created. I was pleased to see the ``Gang 
of Six'' senators pick up the broad outlines of Bowles-Simpson and 
continue to work together this year on a comprehensive deficit 
reduction plan. The news earlier today that the Gang of Six has offered 
a path forward and that a large group of senators from both sides of 
the aisle is reacting positively to the plan is very encouraging.
  I do not want the United States to default from a failure to raise 
the debt limit. The full faith and credit of the United States is on 
the line. Without an agreement, the cost to every American to borrow 
will rise, from home loans to car loans to student loans; the checks 
the Treasury writes will pick winners and losers.
  It is precisely because the stakes are so high that I vote today for 
H.R. 2560 with the fervent hope that it will force the president and 
the House and Senate to come together and embrace a realistic and 
balanced deficit and debt reduction plan like the one recommended by 
Bowles-Simpson and the Gang of Six that puts our nation on sound 
financial footing for not only today, but for our children and 
grandchildren's generations.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this ridiculous 
legislation quickly cobbled together by House Republicans to appease 
their Tea Party fringe. The so-called ``Cut, Cap and Balance'' Act 
(H.R. 2560) is a dangerous political stunt that pushes our Nation right 
up to the edge of default.
  With this bill--better called the Slash, Burn and Pander Act--House 
Republicans are taking our country to the brink of insolvency and 
financial devastation to make absolutely sure that rich people in 
America keep their tax breaks, that big oil and gas companies continue 
to receive their corporate welfare, and that the pharmaceutical 
industry be spared from contributing to our economic recovery.
  The first title of the bill would immediately slash federal spending 
at such massive levels as to endanger our government's ability to 
perform basic functions. If enacted, it would likely prevent the 
government from sending out Social Security checks to seniors, from 
providing unemployment insurance benefits during our ongoing economic 
crisis, from conducting NIH research to find cures for deadly diseases, 
and from ensuring our food is safe to eat.
  The second title would enforce arbitrary and extreme annual federal 
government spending limits. The bill pays lip service to protecting 
Medicare and Social Security in the near term--because even right-
wingers understand the importance of these programs to the American 
people. However, there is no mathematical way that the federal 
government could meet these draconian limits without putting Medicare 
and Social Security on the chopping block.
  The third title would prohibit the debt ceiling from being raised 
until Congress sends a Balanced Budget Amendment to the States for 
ratification--all before the August 2nd deadline when we begin to 
default. This Amendment to the Constitution would require even more 
restrictive spending limits over time. Importantly, it would also 
mandate a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate--a nearly 
impossible hurdle--to ever close corporate tax loopholes or enact tax 
increases.
  With their Slash, Burn and Pander Act, House Republicans are saying 
to the American public that the federal government will no longer 
provide the services and programs they value. At the same time, 
Republicans would make special interest tax breaks permanent by 
requiring a super-majority to change existing law.
  What's most stunning about this debate is that everyone knows this 
bill has no chance of becoming law. In just two weeks, the United 
States will start defaulting on its obligations. The House's actions 
today waste precious time and take us further away from a solution. 
President Obama already put a deficit deal on the table that goes 
beyond what many Democrats and I are comfortable with. House 
Republicans rejected him out-of-hand and, instead, have offered the 
radical legislation before us today.
  The fact that this inane piece of legislation is on the floor 
highlights the difference between governing and campaigning--and makes 
clear that many on the Republican side of the aisle remain unable to 
make that distinction.
  I urge my colleagues to join my in voting ``no'' on the Slash, Burn 
and Pander Act.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I don't think that there is a Member here who 
doesn't believe that America is in poor fiscal health. But the question 
facing us is this: do we value fiscal responsibility enough to make 
hard choices, give up some of what we want, and come to the compromise 
that our form of government demands? Or do we see the possibility of a 
fiscal crisis as nothing more than a chance to advance our ideological 
ends? What matters more to us--restoring America's health, or 
gratifying our party's ideology? We cannot have both.
  It's clear that the first, responsible approach is typified by 
President Obama, who has offered a compromise plan to reduce our long-
term deficit by $4 trillion, even as it gives up spending that 
Democrats value highly. It's also clear that the reckless, ideological 
approach is typified by the Republicans who have thus far rejected that 
compromise because it does not conform to 100 percent of their demands.
  It's also typified by this radical plan to cut, cap, and end 
Medicare. This bill, under the guise of responding to a fiscal 
emergency that they themselves helped create, would write Republicans' 
most extreme and unpopular priorities into law. It would impose cuts 
even more extreme than those in this spring's Republican budget, which 
would have ended Medicare. A vote for this bill would not only be 
another vote to end Medicare--it would be a vote to dramatically slash 
programs for the most vulnerable Americans, programs like Medicaid and 
Social Security. Republicans would break the Medicare guarantee--but

[[Page 11440]]

they are adamantly opposed to asking the best-off among us to 
contribute their fair share. Nor would they ask for cuts in defense 
spending.
  In fact, this bill would actually make a job-destroying default on 
our debt more likely. In order to pay our bills, Republicans would 
require us to pass a Constitutional amendment that would permanently 
enshrine their partisan budget priorities in law and make it virtually 
impossible to raise revenue. It is nothing more than a ransom demand--
and the beneficiaries of than ransom demand are the most privileged 
Americans, who are asked to sacrifice nothing even as ordinary 
Americans are asked to sacrifice their futures, their security, and 
their health.
  When even three-quarters of Republicans said in a poll last week that 
they want a balanced deficit solution, it is clear that this bill is 
targeted at the extreme fringe in American politics, a small minority 
of the far right. I urge my colleagues to affirm that this House 
represents all Americans--and to vote down this bill.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following exchange 
of letters:

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Ways and Means,

                                    Washington, DC, July 18, 2011.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Ryan: I am writing concerning H.R. 2560, the 
     ``Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011'' which is expected to be 
     scheduled for floor consideration this week.
       As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has 
     jurisdiction over the bonded debt of the United States. Title 
     III of this bill amends Title 31 of the United States Code by 
     changing the amount of debt subject to the statutory limit. 
     In order to expedite H.R. 2560 for Floor consideration, the 
     Committee will forgo action on the bill. This is being done 
     with the understanding that it does not in any way prejudice 
     the Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or 
     its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar 
     legislation.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming 
     this understanding with respect to H.R. 2560, and would ask 
     that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be 
     included in the Congressional Record during Floor 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Dave Camp,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____
                                  
                                         House of Representatives,


                                      Committee on the Budget,

                                    Washington, DC, July 19, 2011.
     Hon. Dave Camp,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Camp: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011, which is 
     expected to be considered on the floor this week. The 
     Committee on Ways and Means makes a valid point that certain 
     provisions in this legislation are in your Committee's 
     jurisdiction. I appreciate your decision to facilitate prompt 
     consideration of the bill by the full House. I understand 
     that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on 
     Ways and Means is not waiving its jurisdiction.
       Per your request, I will include a copy of our exchange of 
     letters with respect to H.R. 2560 in the Congressional Record 
     during House consideration of this bill. We appreciate your 
     cooperation and look forward to working with you as this bill 
     moves through the Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Paul Ryan,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2560, ``The 
Cut, Cap and Balance Act'' of 2011.
  This legislation would cut total spending by $111 billion in FY 2012 
and would institute hard spending caps over the next ten years. The 
bill would provide for the president's request for a debt ceiling 
increase if and only if a Balanced Budget Amendment passes Congress and 
is sent to the states for ratification.
  Today, we find ourselves on the precipice of a national economic 
calamity.
  I am NOT speaking about the current debate over the debt ceiling, 
which is indeed very serious.
  America pays its bills and default would be irresponsible!
  But rather, I am referring to an unsustainable national debt--fueled 
by out-of-control spending and its damaging partner, rising taxes--that 
threatens to overwhelm our entire economy. We are truly on the verge of 
becoming ``Athens on the Potomac.''
  Even if we were not facing a debt ceiling question, I would urge that 
we enact steep and immediate federal spending cuts, as the Committee on 
Appropriations is doing.
  These reductions must be implemented now because the `promise' of 
cuts five or eight or 10 years from now means very little without a way 
to enforce them.
  The only way to truly guarantee spending cuts from future Presidents 
and future members of Congress is to make sure that the Constitution 
requires it.
  We've tried lower spending targets before.
  We've attempted to use deficit reduction goals.
  We've enacted ``across-the-board'' spending cuts.
  We've impounded federal dollars.
  We've even sequestered funding to force deficit reduction.
  The fact of the matter is that none of them worked.
  A $14.3 trillion national debate stands as an appalling monument to 
Washington's extravagance.
  Congress and the President always find another waiver, another 
loophole, another procedural escape clause to get around what common-
sense tells us has to be done: we must be made to live within our 
means.
  Because we cannot continue to spend money we do not have, we are here 
today to cut spending immediately, set enforceable future caps on 
spending and send to the states for ratification a balanced budget 
amendment to our Constitution.
  My Colleagues, the preamble to that Constitution states that we are 
to ``promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty 
to ourselves and our posterity . . .''
  As I said earlier, we stand at a financial precipice. Our current 
federal fiscal policies are unsustainable for us and for our 
posterity--our children and their children.
  The legislation before us would return us to the spirit and the 
letter of the Constitution's Preamble.
  In closing Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves in a debt crisis not 
because the debt ceiling is too low, but because federal government 
spending is too high!
  H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap and Balance Act is a Constitutional, 
permanent solution which will put an end to the spending-driven debt 
spiral and rescue our children and grandchildren from a future of 
bankruptcy and limited opportunity.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong 
opposition to H.R. 2560, the Republican ``Cut, Cap, and Balance Act,'' 
which is before us today. I am sorry that the House of Representatives 
has to spend any time on this deeply flawed piece of legislation 
instead of dealing with the host of serious issues facing our Nation.
  I have limited time, so I am not going to try today to cover all of 
the significant problems inherent in H.R. 2560; I know that there are 
other Members who plan to address many of the issues I care about, such 
as the central truth that this bill would end the Medicare guarantee. 
That in itself is reason enough to oppose H.R. 2560, but I also want to 
highlight the devastating impact this bill would have on our Nation's 
competitiveness, our ability to innovate, and our ability to create the 
jobs of the future.
  As written, the legislation before us today would cut non-security 
discretionary spending for FY 2012 by $76 billion. That translates into 
a 25 percent cut in budget authority next year with similar draconian 
cuts in the years that follow. What will be the impact of cuts of that 
magnitude? They will be profound and will inflict long-term damage to 
our Nation's well-being. Let me give just a few examples.
  First, let's consider the impact of such a cut on the programs that 
help to predict severe weather, something that has been a particular 
concern in many parts of the Nation this year. With these cuts, Mr. 
Speaker, we would essentially be guaranteeing a diminished national 
capability for weather forecast and prediction, especially of severe 
weather events. Why? Because a 25 percent cut to our polar and 
geostationary weather satellite programs will delay NOAA's ability to 
procure follow-on weather satellites that provide the weather data 
needed 7 days a week, 24 hours a day to make accurate long-term weather 
forecasts.
  What will happen? Well, for one thing, we won't get 10-day weather 
forecasts; the best we'll get with good accuracy are 48-hour weather 
predictions. Farmers, emergency management officials, military 
planners, fisherman, coastal residents and marine transportation 
capabilities, the tourism industry, and all Americans and other 
American businesses will be operating with weather predictions that are 
severely diminished in accuracy. When it comes to extreme weather 
events such as those that we've been experiencing across the Nation, 
diminished weather forecasting directly increases the risk of loss of 
lives and property, not to mention the widespread economic losses that 
come from our inability to prepare for such extreme events.
  Mr. Speaker, why would Congress want to ``go blind'' to severe 
weather and put our people and our economic infrastructure at risk, 
especially when our economic recovery is so fragile and Americans are 
struggling daily to make ends meet?

[[Page 11441]]

  Turning now to NSF, while it's difficult to quantify the devastating 
impacts of a 25 percent cut to the NSF budget, we can roughly estimate 
that such a cut would lead to the reduction of over 17,000 research 
grants: about 16,500 funded by the various Research Directorates, and 
750 funded by the Education and Human Resources Directorate.
  We cannot predict where the next scientific breakthroughs will come 
from, or which research grant will lead to the next Google or GPS. So 
not only will these budget cuts affect over 200,000 people supported by 
NSF, including graduate students, undergraduates, K-12 teachers, and K-
12 students, but these cuts will most certainly significantly harm our 
nation's ability to innovate, create jobs, and compete in the global 
economy.
  With these kinds of budget cuts, we will be supporting less cutting-
edge research and building fewer critically important scientific 
research user facilities, but perhaps the biggest problem is the loss 
of human capital. China and Europe are increasing funding for research 
and building world class research facilities while we are heading in 
the opposite direction. Those countries are successfully recruiting our 
best and brightest as we successfully recruited theirs for many 
decades.
  Such steep cuts to the National Science Foundation will cause vital 
investments in sustainability, leading edge technology, and STEM 
education to be greatly delayed, reduced, or altogether cancelled. 
These investments include support for: NSF-wide emphasis on Science, 
Engineering, and Education for Sustainability, including vital 
investments in clean energy research; major investments critical to job 
creation and competitiveness, such as advanced manufacturing and the 
National Robotics Initiative; pathbreaking efforts to improve pre-
college and undergraduate education, including the Teacher Learning for 
the Future program and new investments to transform undergraduate 
science courses.
  A budget cut of even 5 percent to NSF's Major Research Equipment and 
Facilities and Construction account would result in the termination of 
approximately $100 million in contracts to industry for work in 
progress on major facilities for environmental and oceanographic 
research. This would directly lead to layoffs of roughly 100 direct 
scientific and technical staff, with larger impacts at supplier 
companies. In addition, costs over the life of these projects would 
increase by over $100 million because of delays in the construction 
schedule. Again, this is the potential scenario with a 5 percent cut--
not the 25 percent cut to discretionary authorizations included in the 
bill before us today.
  The National Science Foundation is the premier STEM education 
research organization in the country. For decades, NSF has been a 
leader in improving our collective understanding of how students learn, 
and how we can develop the most effective and inspiring curriculum and 
train the most effective and inspiring teachers. The education research 
being funded at NSF is critical to helping us to better understand what 
works and what doesn't, so that we can invest in programs that will 
really make a difference in our schools. Cuts to STEM education at NSF 
not only will directly impact many students and teachers across the 
country, but it will greatly limit our ability to improve the state of 
education in this country for every student and every teacher.
  We cannot afford to make cuts to STEM education at a time when other 
countries are consistently outperforming us on international tests. For 
example, in the 2009 PISA, American schoolchildren ranked 17th out of 
34 OECD countries in science. Shanghai-China, Finland, Hong Kong-China, 
and Singapore were the highest performers in the science assessment. 
Furthermore, American schoolchildren ranked 25th out of 34 OECD 
countries for math. Shanghai-China, Singapore, and Hong Kong-China 
ranked first, second and third in math, respectively. This is simply 
not the time for us to be cutting funding for critical STEM education 
programs at the NSF.
  Mr. Speaker, the bad news in this bill does not end there. The impact 
on NASA is equally grim. For example, a 25 percent reduction to NASA's 
Space Operations account is over $1 billion. This cut could cause NASA 
to reduce the number of cargo and crew transportation flights to the 
International Space Station, thereby jeopardizing its agreement with 
ISS partners to have 6 crew members operate the $100 billion research 
facility. Delaying contracted for cargo and crew flights from 
commercial partners and Russia may have financial repercussions. It 
could render NASA unable to fulfill its agreed-to pension liability 
payments to shuttle workers and it could jeopardize our ability to 
receive data from on-going deep space missions by not having the money 
needed to replace critical components in its unreliable and outdated 
communications network.
  A 25 percent reduction to NASA's Exploration account would cut almost 
a billion dollars, further delaying the development of the Space Launch 
System and Multipurpose Crew Vehicle--NASA's follow-on human space 
transportation and exploration vehicles--causing an even greater gap in 
the ability of a U.S. government-operated human transportation system 
to access space whenever needed, as well as causing disruption to on-
going contracts, possibly requiring extensive layoffs and financial 
compensation due to terminated contracts and further destabilizing the 
aerospace industrial base.
  A 25 percent reduction to NASA's Aeronautics Research account is over 
$142 million. This will force cuts to NASA's critically important 
research in aviation safety and airspace systems and delay work needed 
by the FAA to increase the capacity and efficiency of the nation's air 
transportation system through NextGen modernization. In addition, it 
will prevent NASA from conducting unique research required to develop 
environmentally responsible aircraft.
  NASA's science programs would also suffer deep cuts, an outcome that 
will be doing long-term damage to an area in which the United States 
has maintained unquestioned leadership. It is doing the challenging R&D 
projects that keep our companies and workforce at the top of their 
game--whether it's landing spacecraft on Mars, acquiring data to 
understand the complex behavior of our own planet, or carrying out the 
analysis of data collected from space. Cutting NASA's science programs 
by 25 percent will severely harm our ability to carry out pathbreaking 
research, such as investigating dark energy, which may lead to 
revolutionary breakthroughs in our understanding of our Universe. It 
will also draw the best and brightest who seek inspirational and 
challenging projects.
  A cut of this magnitude would not only preclude new projects, such as 
those recommended in National Academies decadal surveys, but could even 
jeopardize missions being readied for launch in FY 2012, such as the 
Mars Science Laboratory, the NPP weather satellite, and the Radiation 
Belt Storm Probe, a mission that will help us understand the impact of 
the radiation belt environment on spacecraft, something with important 
practical significance.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't want to sit on the sidelines while other nations 
are the first to announce major scientific discoveries, draw the 
world's top science and engineering talent into their fold, and begin 
to assume leadership in areas where the U.S. has always been on the 
cutting-edge.
  NASA's education programs would also suffer if this bill ever becomes 
law. Mr. Speaker, we tell the youth of this nation to reach for the 
stars, and NASA is truly one of the agencies that inspire our next 
generation to dream big and pursue the disciplines that we know are 
needed to keep our nation strong--science and engineering. However, 
under this bill, a 25 percent cut to NASA's education programs would 
cripple initiatives such as the Space Grant and EPSCoR (Experimental 
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research) programs, minority education 
projects such as the Minority Undergraduate Research and Education 
Project (MUREP), and K-12 teacher training and student opportunities 
that are so critical to building and stimulating our future 
capabilities.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, a 25 percent reduction to NASA's Cross Agency 
Support account would have serious implications for NASA's safety and 
mission success, NASA's information technology activities, and our 
ability to operate NASA Centers across the U.S. I'd hate to think what 
a cut to NASA's safety and mission success activities would mean for 
ensuring the safety of our nation's astronauts launched into space and 
the success of the critical functions they and our robotic spacecraft 
perform. At a time when cybersecurity is being discussed as a key issue 
across federal agencies, this cut would reduce NASA's critical 
information technology functions, including information security. It is 
highly likely that a cut to the agency operations budgets included in 
this account could require NASA to shut down NASA Centers, lay off 
additional contractors, and take actions that would have negative 
repercussions throughout communities and regions at a time when local 
economies are already stressed and jobs are hard to come by.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that my remarks give Members and the American 
public some idea of the harm that enactment of this short-sighted piece 
of legislation would do, not only to the agencies listed, but also to 
other important R&D initiatives at the Department of Energy, the 
National Institutes of Standards and Technology, and NOAA, to name but 
a few of the affected agencies.

[[Page 11442]]

  At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not going to become 
law. It is simply a diversion from the serious business on which this 
body should be focusing its attention. However, it is not a harmless 
diversion. The extreme and ill-considered cuts that would flow from its 
enactment send a terrible message to our citizens about this House's 
priorities. When your car is low on gas, you don't siphon more out of 
the tank, yet that is what this bill would do to the nation's R&D and 
innovation capabilities. I want the record to be clear that I do not 
support the cuts in this bill, nor do I support the process under which 
this bill has come to the House floor. We can--and should--do better. 
This bill is short-sighted; its negative impacts would cost more in the 
long-term than any immediate budget reductions would save in the short-
term. I urge my colleagues in Congress to vote NO on this bill.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Republican 
plan to end Medicare and the health care safety net.
  Republicans are playing a dangerous game of chicken. They are 
threatening to hold the global economy hostage unless President Obama 
and the Senate agree to their demands to slash Medicare and Medicaid.
  We must reject this assault on seniors, the disabled, and children.
  Previous amendments to the Constitution have ended slavery and 
guaranteed the rights of citizens of all races to equal treatment under 
the law. They have guaranteed the freedoms of speech and religion, and 
for protection from unwarranted government intrusions on personal 
rights.
  What great principle do Republicans seek to enshrine into the 
Constitution today?
  The principle that the rich should never pay more taxes;
  That Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are too expensive for 
our Nation to afford;
  And the U.S. Congress should be stripped of its ability to increase 
spending to protect our economy from recession.
  Republicans say that they are protecting Medicare for the future--
don't buy it. That's what they told us about their budget plan. It 
wasn't true then, and it isn't true now.
  Republicans tried to end Medicare as we know it in the budget they 
passed in April. Public outrage stalled their plans. So today they have 
a new approach: Pass a constitutional amendment that that would make it 
impossible for Congress to continue to fund Medicare, Medicaid, and 
Social Security.
  Their objective is to end Medicare as we know it, repealing its 
guarantees of coverage for hospital care, chemotherapy, doctor's 
visits, and prescription drugs. In its place they would create a 
voucher system--and yes, it is a voucher. Seniors would be forced into 
the private market to buy health insurance with only limited financial 
support from the government.
  This plan will increase premiums and cost sharing by $6,000 per 
person. And they want to write it into the Constitution!
  And they want to destroy Medicaid too. Republicans would cut Medicaid 
in half by 2022, leaving tens of millions of people without access to 
care. People in nursing homes would be cut off. They would also slash 
support for the Children's Health Insurance Program, jeopardizing 
access to care for 8 million kids.
  Medicaid is the primary payer for long-term care and the home and 
community-based services that help people stay out of nursing homes. 
Who will now bear the $72,000 per year cost of a nursing home for an 
85-year old grandmother who collects $10,000 a year in Social Security 
benefits? Her children will try, but only the rich will be able to 
afford the costs in today's economy.
  This is a complete abdication of our commitment to providing care 
with dignity for our seniors.
  The Republican proposal has other deplorable consequences. It would 
make it impossible to invest in biomedical research to find tomorrow's 
cures and technologies for cancer, Alzheimer's, and heart disease. It 
would effectively foreclose the possibility that Congress could address 
climate change by putting a price on carbon emissions. It would cripple 
the FDA, threatening the safety of our pharmaceuticals and our food.
  This is an extreme and dangerous proposal. Instead of holding our 
seniors hostage, we need to work together to pass a realistic 
compromise that will ensure we honor our debt while lowering our 
deficit.
  I urge a no vote on this legislation.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the nation's financial future should be 
serious business. Unfortunately, House Republicans are not treating it 
that way. It's bad enough that too many of them are willing to court 
financial disaster by hijacking the process of raising the debt 
ceiling. Today's vote is perhaps the clearest illustration of their 
cavalier approach.
  The vote on the so-called Cut, Cap, and Balance bill comes without 
legislative work in any substantive committee. As a member of both the 
Budget and Ways and Means Committees, I would have welcomed hearings 
and work sessions which would have shown this bill to be a travesty. 
Not a single president in 50 years proposed any budget that would have 
met their requirements that spending be limited to 18 percent of GDP. 
Ronald Reagan never proposed a budget under 21 percent.
  House Republicans would mandate a balanced budget every year, whether 
we were at war or dealing with the fallout of a tragic natural disaster 
or an economic meltdown. Cuts to Medicare, the social safety net and 
student loans would still be possible with a single majority vote, and 
yet eliminating tax breaks for the favored and the wealthiest 
individuals or corporations would require a two-thirds supermajority. 
Since House Republicans want to continue to protect some areas of 
spending and give more tax breaks to people who don't need them, this 
means even more draconian cuts to the programs that people depend on 
the most.
  The House Republican approach is not about controlling the national 
debt. The Republican budget still increases the debt ceiling almost $9 
trillion. Yet their proposal would require three-fifths supermajority 
to raise the debt ceiling in the future. This bizarre legislation would 
freeze into Federal law and the Constitution the same dysfunctional 
mechanics which made the State of California the fiscal basket case 
that it is today.
  Fortunately, this wacky and irresponsible measure will not be enacted 
by this Congress; even if Congress were to pass it, the President would 
veto it. The legislation does put the spotlight on the risks to the 
country's financial future if voters reward this behavior. The only 
good that may come of the charade is that it might provide cover for a 
deal averting the damage from the debt ceiling gamesmanship.
  Everyone knows we must honor our debts. Perhaps this foolishness will 
permit Republican leadership to walk themselves and their members off 
the ledge and not punish American families. I strongly oppose this 
cynical, ill-advised proposal.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly oppose the 
Republican's ``Cut, Cap, and Balance Act.'' The only thing balanced 
about this bill is that it has the word balance in the title. The 
actual title should be ``Cut, Default, and End Medicare Act'' since it 
would have a devastating effect on all American families and 
businesses. This legislation makes significant cuts to social programs, 
and caps spending at unprecedented levels.
  Quite simply, this is the worst piece of legislation I have seen 
while serving in Congress. This legislation seals tax breaks for 
richest Americans, while gutting Medicare for seniors and other 
critical programs for students, such as Pell Grants. In order to 
eliminate tax breaks for the richest two percent of Americans, a 
supermajority of Congress would be required for approval. This bill 
will adversely impact the Hispanic community and will substantially 
weaken the American economy.
  The Republican plan is not the balanced approach Americans favor: 
spending cuts and revenue increases, but instead the Tea Party plan 
will lock in cuts over the next 10 years as severe as those in the Ryan 
budget plan that they passed in April. In fact, according to a CBS News 
Poll released Monday, 66 percent of Americans say an agreement to raise 
the amount of money the nation can borrow should include both spending 
cuts and tax increases. This bill would exacerbate the debt crisis by 
making it more difficult for the U.S. to pay its bills by August 2nd 
and force the passage of a constitutional amendment that would require 
a two-thirds approval to raise any revenue in the future.
  This bill would require slashing $111 billion immediately from 
critical programs, in FY2012, without regard to the 9.2 percent 
unemployment rate. These cuts would cause the loss of roughly 700,000 
jobs in the current weak economy. In fact, the Republicans' slash and 
burn politics have not created a single job for hardworking middle 
class families in over the 200 days they have controlled the House. 
Instead of rebuilding our economic infrastructure by investing in 
roads, ports, bridges, and education and job training programs to help 
middle class Americans, they push a radical and dangerous ideological 
agenda.
  H.R. 2560 also continues the Republicans assault on our nation's 
seniors. Their plan will inevitably result in the end of the Medicare 
guarantee, shifting thousands of dollars of health costs onto seniors, 
shredding the social safety net and our promise to protect our most 
vulnerable. Social Security would also be affected, even though Social 
Security doesn't add 1 penny to the deficit.
  Rather than focusing on innovation, infrastructure, education, and 
jobs, Republicans

[[Page 11443]]

want to manipulate the Constitution to make it easier to cut Medicare 
and Social Security than to close special interest tax loopholes.
  The bill destroys Social Security and Medicare as we know them. These 
programs are extremely important to seniors, especially to those in my 
district. H.R. 2560 is nothing more than an ideological piece of 
legislation to pursue a radical policy agenda of attacking the 
livelihood of our seniors, while protecting tax breaks for special 
interests and the wealthiest Americans. For these reasons, I strongly 
urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and stand firm in support 
of our seniors, children, and most vulnerable.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, ``The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act'' shows 
yet again how out of step the Majority is with the needs and concerns 
of ordinary Americans. With over 9 percent unemployment, Congress 
should focus on growing the economy, lowering unemployment and reducing 
our deficit.
  We can achieve this economic growth through a fiscal policy that 
invests in our future, creates broad based economic growth and shares 
the burden of debt reduction. Instead, we are debating an ideologically 
extreme policy that makes the Majority's budget's treatment of seniors, 
the middle class and our children look balanced.
  This bill caps spending at 18 percent of Gross Domestic Product 
(GDP), a level not seen since 1966, when seniors made up 9 percent of 
the population, not the 13 percent they make up today. In 1966, the 
average cost of medical care was $1,500 a year, not the $8,200 that it 
is today, and almost no Americans were enrolled in Medicare, whereas 
over 46 million seniors are enrolled today.
  Even more disturbing, the bill holds an increase in the debt ceiling 
hostage to the passage of a so-called ``Balanced Budget Amendment.'' 
This Balanced Budget Amendment is more radical than those that have 
been considered by Congress in the past. Unbelievably, it would require 
a supermajority in both houses of Congress to raise revenues.
  However, you would only need a simple majority to cut taxes on the 
wealthy and multi-national corporations and slash government programs 
that our most vulnerable citizens rely on. What type of priorities do 
we have when we change the Constitution to make it easier to cut 
Medicare and Social Security, and nearly impossible to end the tax 
breaks for special interests groups like the oil industry?
  We are at a place in our history where the concentration of wealth at 
the very top has only been matched at the time immediately prior to the 
Great Depression. This bill will not only continue this trend, but it 
will act as a catalyst where the people who already have so much, will 
be given so much more.
  And if one thinks that the Balanced Budget Amendment is sound fiscal 
policy, they would be sorely mistaken. One only has to look at many of 
the states who have Balanced Budget Amendments on the books to see what 
happens when you amend your Constitution to promote ideology and 
politics over common sense fiscal solutions.
  The budget priorities enshrined in this legislation have been soundly 
rejected by the American people, who have also made it clear that they 
want Congress to come together and solve our fiscal problems and to 
stop political posturing. We need to be serious in our attempts to 
right our fiscal ship, but this Majority is asking our seniors, our 
children and our middle class workers to take on all the sacrifice 
while asking nothing of the wealthiest amongst us. I therefore urge my 
colleagues to reject this legislation.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2560, 
which should be called the Cut, Cap, and Default Act. This is not a 
serious attempt to deal with our debt or the looming threat that the 
United States could default on its obligations. If the concern of the 
supporters of this legislation was truly our national debt, they would 
not be working to pass a bill that would virtually guarantee default on 
our debt. This may provide some political cover for certain members, 
but it is not a serious response to the problems of our economy.
  To raise the debt limit, this legislation requires two-thirds of both 
chambers of Congress to pass a balanced budget amendment that games the 
system by making it far easier to slash federal programs like Medicare 
(with a simple majority vote) than to raise taxes on the wealthy or 
eliminate special interest loopholes (a higher than majority, two-
thirds of members must agree). Unneeded tax breaks for oil companies or 
loopholes that benefit hedge fund managers would be protected, but 
Medicare, Social Security, unemployment insurance, and other programs 
that matter to the middle class and the most vulnerable members of our 
community would be on the chopping block. In addition to our social 
safety net programs, this bill would force cuts in programs ensuring 
public safety, investing in education and infrastructure, and 
protecting our environment.
  Under this bill, multimillionaires could rest easy that they wouldn't 
lose the generous tax cuts they received under President George W. 
Bush. But poor seniors who need Medicaid to be able to get nursing home 
care would be out of luck. Pell Grants that enable middle and low 
income students to go to college would have to be cut. Nutrition 
programs for children and the elderly would be curtailed. Government 
efforts to protect clean air and water and to protect the wildlife, 
especially endangered species, would suffer.
  It has long been the goal of some to ``starve the beast,'' that is, 
to cut taxes to the level that government services they feel are 
unnecessary are eliminated. These ``services'' include Medicare, 
Medicaid, Social Security, environmental regulation, and the U.S. 
Department of Education to name a few well-known targets.
  I recognize the need to get our debt under control. But we are in the 
process of recovering from a devastating recession brought on by the 
policies of the very people calling for cuts in spending today. We have 
to raise the debt ceiling because we have less revenue due to the Bush 
tax cuts, billions spent on two wars, and critically needed efforts to 
pull our economy out of the nose dive it was in at the end of the Bush 
administration. Holding the full faith and credit of the United States 
hostage is not the answer to our problems. We need to come together and 
take the responsible action of raising the debt limit and then move on 
to addressing the most serious crises facing our nation: stimulating 
job growth and getting our economy moving again.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, only in Washington can someone 
charge $14.3 trillion in debt, ask for a higher credit limit, and not 
propose a single solution about how to control their seemingly 
unrestrained spending. That is just what the current Administration has 
asked Congress to do and it is something which I joined 317 of my 
colleagues, Republican and Democrat, in saying ``no!''
  As every Alaskan family knows, there is no magic wand that will just 
waive debt away. Rather, debt must be managed, luxuries must be given 
up, and budgets must be made and adhered to. H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap 
and Balance Act of 2011 employs what should be a common-sense approach 
to controlling and paying down our bloated debt. By cutting today's 
spending and capping and indexing tomorrow's spending to our growth, we 
can begin to pay down the $46,000 that each and every American owes.
   To ensure that future generations do not make the same spending 
mistakes, H.R. 2560 will also encourage Congress to propose a Balanced 
Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. With this amendment we can 
begin to restrain growth of Washington bureaucrats whose sole job is to 
prevent resource development and make everyone's life more complicated 
and more difficult. By forcing future Congress to spend only what they 
take in revenue, we can finally create a government which lives within 
its means.
  In the 112th Congress, I am a proud and original cosponsor of a 
balanced budget amendment and in previous Congresses I have voted for a 
balanced budget amendment five separate times. Since my first vote in 
favor of a Balanced Budget Amendment in 1982, I have supported the idea 
that Congress, like every American family, must make and stick to a 
budget. Alaskan families seem to understand this concept, it is time 
that Washington learned from their example.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise is strong opposition to H.R. 2560.
   This misguided legislation is a ridiculous gimmick that has been 
dismissed as such by budget and economic experts on both sides of the 
aisle.
   It does nothing to pay our bills. It does nothing to create jobs and 
grow our economy. And it does nothing to address the rapidly 
approaching default crisis.
   So what would it actually do?
   It would destroy jobs and cause economic catastrophe. It protects 
tax breaks and loopholes for Big Oil and Wall Street by cutting the 
critical safety net programs seniors, children and American families 
depend on. And, it would double down on the draconian Ryan Budget, 
ending Medicare and more than doubling health care costs for seniors.
   Rather than wasting yet more time debating a bill that won't pass 
the Senate and would be vetoed by the President, we should be doing the 
one thing guaranteed to reduce our deficit immediately--create jobs.
   Yes, we must make tough choices to reduce spending and balance our 
budget. But these cuts must not endanger our economic future. We still 
need to invest in innovation, infrastructure and education to create 
the jobs today

[[Page 11444]]

and in the future and to ensure a well-trained workforce to do those 
jobs.
   Putting people to work and helping businesses grow increases revenue 
streams and decreases budget deficits. This is the most effective way 
to reduce the deficit and pay our bills while still protecting our 
economic future.
   This bill, however, would do the opposite by balancing the budget on 
the backs of seniors, the middle income families and the most 
vulnerable among us.
   Our deficit is a serious problem that requires serious solutions.
   Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2560 is not a serious solution, and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, This ``Cut, Cap and Gut'' 
proposal isn't just a retread of the policies our colleagues voted for 
in their extreme budget resolution that would end Medicare as we know 
it; it's worse. This bill holds an increase in the debt limit hostage 
to passage of a radical GOP Constitutional Amendment that would require 
even deeper cuts after ending Medicare as we know it.
  It arbitrarily caps federal spending at 18 percent of GDP. To say 
this is unwise is an understatement. The last time federal spending was 
18 percent or less of GDP was 1966. The problems of 2011 don't call for 
a rigid ideology 45 years behind the curve. Why would we tie Congress' 
hands in the event of future economic challenges? In economic downturns 
Congress should be able to cut taxes or increase investments to 
stimulate growth. This is basic economic policy.
  This proposal turns a blind eye not just to basic economics, but to 
the two pressing and related challenges facing our country: growing the 
economy and charting a course back to fiscal balance. It would 
necessitate across the board cuts in the domestic programs--education, 
research, infrastructure and Medicare--that make us strong and ensure 
our economic success. We know that the best cure for a budget deficit 
is a growing economy, but this bill requires deep spending cuts 
starting in October that could stall the recovery and put more 
Americans out of work.
  The budget surpluses we achieved during the 1990s were the result of 
a concerted effort to balance the budget through a comprehensive 
approach. Revenues, entitlements, military and domestic spending--all 
were on the table. We balanced the budget four years in a row. We paid 
off more than $400 billion of the national debt. Yet those surpluses 
were squandered during the George W. Bush administration through 
trillions in tax cuts and two wars and a privatized prescription drug 
plan--none of it paid for. Then, when the recession hit in 2008, we 
were already deep in a fiscal hole and our ability to take effective 
countermeasures was dangerously compromised. We must never let that 
happen again.
  The bill before us is the opposite of a balanced, comprehensive 
approach. This bill makes it easier for future Congresses to cut 
Medicare than to close tax loopholes for oil companies or millionaires, 
because it requires a 2/3 vote for any measure that raises revenue. The 
Ronald Reagan-Tip O'Neal agreement to save Social Security in 1983 
would not have passed this hurdle. George H. W. Bush's bipartisan 1990 
deficit reduction plan would not have passed this hurdle, nor would the 
Democratic deficit reduction plan of 1993. So this bill willfully cuts 
off Congress' access to the tools that have produced meaningful deficit 
reduction and boosted economic growth, at a time when our economy is 
fragile and millions of Americans are out of work.
  Perhaps this is just positioning by the House majority, but there is 
no need for this brinksmanship. We should not be making these decisions 
under duress, but that is exactly where the Republican no-compromise 
majority has left us. They ask us to alter the fundamental relationship 
between our people and government--undermining Medicare, education, 
infrastructure and research funding--by voting on a bill that has never 
seen a committee vote and was only completed last Friday.
  This legislation is not worthy of Congress' approval, and it deserves 
rejection from those on both sides of the aisle who understand that it 
is a dangerous diversion from the pressing tasks of job creation and 
sound fiscal policy.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, in 1995, I was one of only 72 Democrats to 
vote for the balanced budget amendment, BBA, considered by the House, 
and I would vote for a straightforward BBA today. However, the bill 
before us, H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap and Balance Act, does not meet this 
standard.
  H.R. 2560 would ensure massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare and 
Medicaid by holding government spending to 18 percent of Gross Domestic 
Product--which has not happened since 1966. In addition, the defense 
budget is exempted from any cuts under this plan. The only way to 
achieve a balanced budget would be to dismantle programs that help 
seniors and the disabled, while tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans 
and corporations that ship jobs overseas are preserved. It is simply 
unacceptable to make seniors and the disabled bear such a large share 
of this burden, and this is why AARP and many other groups oppose H.R. 
2560.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a Republican gimmick, not a serious attempt 
to find common ground and a reasonable approach to getting our deficit 
and debt under control, and I will oppose it.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that our debt crisis is a 
result of Washington spending money it does not have and leaving the 
American people--both of today and future generations--with the 
devastating tab.
  Spending money Washington does not have is the problem, so 
controlling Washington's spending must be part of the solution. The 
Cut, Cap and Balance Act delivers immediate spending cuts, puts in 
place reasonable spending limits going forward, and requires Washington 
to live within its means from here on out.
  Since 2009, the national debt has increased by $3.7 trillion alone 
and today the national debt stands at nearly $14.3 trillion. That's 
$46,000 per American citizen.
  Needless to say, we cannot continue down the same path and expect a 
different result.
  The measures put in place through the Cut, Cap and Balance Act are 
important steps to getting America on a fiscally responsible path. It 
is the least we can do.
  I am proud to support such a common sense solution and help get our 
country back on the right track. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against H.R. 2560, the Cut, 
Cap, and Balance Act. This bill only serves to sanction the status quo 
by putting forth a $1 trillion budget deficit and authorizing a $2.4 
trillion increase in the debt limit.
  When I say this bill sanctions the status quo, I mean it quite 
literally.
  First, it purports to eventually balance the budget without cutting 
military spending, Social Security, or Medicare. This is impossible. 
These three budget items already cost nearly $1 trillion apiece 
annually. This means we can cut every other area of Federal spending to 
zero and still have a $3 trillion budget. Since annual Federal tax 
revenues almost certainly will not exceed $2.5 trillion for several 
years, this Act cannot balance the budget under any plausible scenario.
  Second, it further entrenches the ludicrous beltway concept of 
discretionary vs. nondiscretionary spending. America faces a fiscal 
crisis, and we must seize the opportunity once and for all to slay 
Washington's sacred cows--including defense contractors and 
entitlements. All spending must be deemed discretionary and reexamined 
by Congress each year. To allow otherwise is pure cowardice.
  Third, the Act applies the nonsensical narrative about a ``Global War 
on Terror'' to justify exceptions to its spending caps. Since this war 
is undeclared, has no definite enemies, no clear objectives, and no 
metric to determine victory, it is by definition endless. Congress will 
never balance the budget until we reject the concept of endless wars.
  Finally, and most egregiously, this Act ignores the real issue: total 
spending by government. As Milton Friedman famously argued, what we 
really need is a constitutional amendment to limit taxes and spending, 
not simply to balance the budget. What we need is a dramatically 
smaller Federal Government; if we achieve this a balanced budget will 
take care of itself.
  We do need to cut spending, and by a significant amount. Going back 
to 2008 levels of spending is not enough. We need to cut back at least 
to where spending was a decade ago. A recent news article stated that 
we pay 35 percent more for our military today than we did 10 years ago, 
for the exact same capabilities. The same could be said for the rest of 
the government. Why has our budget doubled in 10 years? This country 
doesn't have double the population, or double the land area, or double 
anything that would require the Federal Government to grow by such an 
obscene amount.
  We need to cap spending, and then continue decreasing that cap so 
that the Federal Government grows smaller and smaller. Allowing 
government to spend up to a certain percentage of GDP is insufficient. 
It doesn't matter that the recent historical average of government 
outlays is 18 percent of GDP, because in recent history the government 
has way overstepped its constitutional mandates. All we need to know 
about spending caps is that they need to decrease year after year.
  We need to balance the budget, but a balanced budget amendment by 
itself will not do the trick. A $4 trillion balanced budget is most

[[Page 11445]]

certainly worse than a $2 trillion unbalanced budget. Again, we should 
focus on the total size of the budget more than outlays vs. revenues.
  What we have been asked to do here is support a budget that only cuts 
relative to the President's proposed budget. It still maintains a $1 
trillion budget deficit for FY 2012, and spends even more money over 
the next 10 years than the Paul Ryan budget which already passed the 
House.
  By capping spending at a certain constant percentage of GDP, it 
allows for Federal spending to continue to grow. Tying spending to GDP 
creates an incentive to manipulate the GDP figure, especially since the 
bill delegates the calculation of this figure to the Office of 
Management and Budget, an agency which is responsible to the President 
and not to Congress. In the worst case, it would even reward further 
inflation of the money supply, as increases in nominal GDP through pure 
inflation would allow for larger Federal budgets.
  Finally, this bill authorizes a $2.4 trillion rise in the debt limit. 
I have never voted for a debt ceiling increase and I never will. 
Increasing the debt ceiling is an endorsement of business as usual in 
Washington. It delays the inevitable, the day that one day will come 
when we cannot continue to run up enormous deficits and will be forced 
to pay our bills.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I sympathize with the aims of this 
bill's sponsors, I must vote against H.R. 2560. It is my hope, however, 
that the looming debt ceiling deadline and the discussion surrounding 
the budget will further motivate us to consider legislation in the near 
future that will make meaningful cuts and long-lasting reforms.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to 
H.R. 2560, the so-called ``Cut, Cap, and Balance the Federal Budget 
Act.''
  This bill should properly be called the ``Cut, Cap, and End Medicare 
and Destroy Social Security Act,'' or quite plainly the ``Cut, Cap, and 
Plunge the United States into Default Act.''
  Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what will happen if this legislation is 
passed. My colleagues across the aisle would have us believe that the 
proposed legislation is the answer to all the debt crisis but any 
attempt to balance the budget on the backs of seniors, veterans and 
America's working families isn't an answer; it's a cruel joke, but one 
with real consequences.
  The American people did not send us here to play games. Instead, they 
want us to work together to adopt fiscally sound pro-growth policies 
that puts our financial house in order and will give a rocket boost to 
our economy so that it creates millions of good-paying jobs for all of 
our people.
  We can do this. We did it in the 1990s when under the leadership of 
President Clinton we balanced the budget four consecutive years, paid 
down the national debt, created 23 million new jobs, and left $5 
trillion in projected surpluses.
  It is not a serious proposal to legislate a spending cap of 18 
percent of GDP, a level that has not occurred since 1966, before the 
escalation of the Vietnam War.
  But this isn't 1966. It's 45 years later, and in 2011 we face greater 
challenges. Our population has increased by 57 percent, we are living 
nearly 10 years longer on average, and the percentage of citizens age 
65 and up has climbed to 13 percent.
  In my district 63,000 men and women receive Medicare annually and 
40,000 receive Social Security, and tens of thousands more will soon 
reach eligibility age. How can I look them in the eye and tell them 
that the benefits they are entitled to, that they have worked so hard 
for over the years, are not coming?
  More Americans than ever rely on Medicare and Social Security to pay 
for the ever increasing costs of health care and provide for themselves 
in retirement. In my district, Social Security constitutes 90% or more 
of the income received by 34 percent of beneficiaries (21 percent of 
married couples and 43 percent of non-married beneficiaries).
  Passing H.R. 2560 will result in draconian cuts to these vital 
benefits. Doing so would leave our most vulnerable citizens exposed and 
unprotected. I cannot and will not support a proposal that will inflict 
such grave hardship on the most vulnerable of our citizens while asking 
nothing of those who benefited most from the reckless economic policies 
of the previous administration.
  Mr. Speaker, the times are serious but this legislation is not. In 
two weeks the debt limit will be reached so time is of the essence. 
This legislation, however, is a waste of time and has no chance of ever 
becoming law. We should reject this proposal and take up a serious 
proposal to resolve the debt crisis and maintain our country's A+ 
credit rating.
  It is difficult to take seriously a proposal that conditions, as this 
bill does, paying the nation's bills upon the approval by the House and 
Senate, and submission to the states for ratification, of a radical 
balanced budget amendment that enshrines the notorious Ryan Budget in 
the Constitution and makes the discredited theory of trickle-down 
economics the law of the land. That is a prescription for economic 
disaster.
  Passage of this gimmick proposal will virtually ensure that America 
will default on its financial obligations for the first time in 
history, with catastrophic consequences for our nation and the global 
economy.
  Seniors will not receive their Social Security checks; funding to 
train, equip, deploy, and pay military and law enforcement personnel 
will be withheld; interest rates will rise; the value of pensions and 
retirement portfolios will fall; and jobs will be lost.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is nothing more than political theater; at 
best a cheap gimmick to appease the Tea Party base of the majority 
party in the House. But it's not the right thing for our country.
  What we need right now is for responsible leaders to act responsibly. 
As legislators, our constituents are looking to us to get serious about 
the serious work we need to do to protect the economy, our people, and 
the nation's unrivaled record of creditworthiness. They deserve no 
less.
  For all these reasons, I stand in strong and unyielding opposition to 
H.R. 2560 and urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this radical 
and dangerous proposal.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 355, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at 
the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I am in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Bishop of Georgia moves that the bill be recommited to 
     the Committee on Rules with instructions to report the 
     following amendment back to the House forthwith:
       At the end of section 301, add the following new 
     subsection:
       (c) Protecting Our Veterans.--It shall not be in order in 
     the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any 
     balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that could 
     result in a reduction in veterans benefits.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman is 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, there are many 
times when we come to this floor and engage in heated debate, and we 
have heard some heated debate today. This so-called Cut, Cap, and 
Balance bill does just that.
  It cuts and it caps programs that will work for everyone and put 
America ahead of our competitors. It cuts and caps our ability to jump-
start new industries in our country, like clean energy. It cuts and 
caps our ability to rebuild our economic infrastructure, like roads and 
bridges and ports, and to put people to work. It cuts and caps 
education and job training opportunities to help middle class people 
get and keep good jobs.
  Yes, it cuts and it caps, but it balances the cuts and the caps by 
protecting tax breaks for the wealthiest folks in our country by 
providing subsidies for corporations that take jobs overseas, away from 
American workers, and by cutting Medicare and Social Security benefits 
for our Nation's seniors--balancing it on the backs of them.
  I have some problems with this bill, Mr. Speaker, but I am a realist, 
and I realize, reluctantly, that it might just pass. So, regardless of 
how we may feel about the underlying legislation, this motion to 
recommit is something upon which we ought to all be able to agree. It 
simply says that it shall not be in order in the House of 
Representatives

[[Page 11446]]

or the Senate to consider any balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution that could result in a reduction in veterans' benefits.

                              {time}  1950

  Mr. Speaker, we have already seen what a shortfall in veterans 
funding can do. I remember the problems with veterans care. I remember 
the $1 billion shortfall a few years ago when the Department of 
Veterans Affairs had to raid its operations and maintenance account to 
help pay for veterans basic medical care.
  Even now, veterans have to wait years to have their claims 
adjudicated because they're just are not enough adjudicators. They have 
to wait too long to get doctors to get their treatment. Mr. Speaker, 
with more of our servicemembers returning home every day, more vets are 
returning home who have no opportunity or a limited opportunity for job 
training, returning home with PTSD, or returning home now having to 
face the possibility of limited educational benefits because of this 
bill and its progeny.
  Mr. Speaker, now is not the time to endanger benefits to our Nation's 
veterans.
  When veterans come home without limbs because they have defended our 
freedoms, we should not put in place Cut, Cap, and Balance legislation 
on their backs, the backs that are strained and damaged by the injuries 
they sustained fighting for this country. We should not stand idly by 
and watch this Congress endanger the welfare of our Nation's heroes.
  Today's Nation's military remains deployed overseas as it has during 
the last 9 years. The funding requirements we face in meeting the needs 
have significantly increased as we continue to meet and address the 
longstanding issues from past and current wars. And we cannot watch the 
requirements for these fighting men and women who come home continue to 
die.
  These needs last long after the last American combatants depart Iraq 
and Afghanistan. This motion to recommit would simply protect our 
veterans from any potential unintended consequence resulting from this 
ill-conceived bill, the so-called Cut, Cap, and Balance Act.
  The needs of America's veterans, past and future, should be one of 
our highest priorities. And this motion will ensure that our veterans 
are taken care of and they receive the benefits they have earned.
  Let's be clear. The passage of this motion to recommit will not 
prevent the passage of the underlying bill. If the amendment is 
adopted, it will be incorporated into the bill and the bill will be 
immediately voted upon.
  So though we may disagree on the bill, today we have the opportunity 
with this motion to recommit and my amendment to speak with one voice 
in support of our veterans.
  It is up to all of us. I urge you to vote ``yes'' on this motion to 
recommit. But let's make sure that if this bill passes, the Cut, Cap 
and Balance and any balanced budget will not result in a reduction of 
veterans benefits. Vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit and protect 
our Nation's veterans.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I have fantastic news. All of the 
gentleman from Georgia's concerns have already been addressed in this 
legislation.
  Let me simply refer you to section 317 where it says: ``Exempt from 
direct spending limits, section (b)(3), veterans benefits and services, 
which is all of function 700.'' Let me refer you to section 318 that 
shows when it comes to sequester, which is basically an enforcement 
mechanism on spending caps, exemption, veterans benefits. Veterans 
benefits are explicitly preserved in this legislation just as they are 
with the budget that we had passed that this cap and cut conformed to.
  So make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, there are no cuts to veterans in 
here, because we agree the men and women out there fighting on the 
front lines for our freedom have been given promises to benefits like 
health care and others, and those promises all are to be kept.
  That is why we've already taken care of the gentleman's concerns so 
the recommit is unnecessary because we preserve the benefits 
explicitly.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on the passage of the bill, if ordered; and approval of 
the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 188, 
nays 236, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 605]

                               YEAS--188

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--236

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan

[[Page 11447]]


     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Blumenauer
     Capuano
     Castor (FL)
     Ellison
     Giffords
     Hinchey
     Shuster
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2017

  Messrs. OLSON and GINGREY of Georgia changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Mr. KEATING, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY and Messrs. THOMPSON of California and 
GEORGE MILLER of California changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 234, 
noes 190, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 606]

                               AYES--234

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--190

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Canseco
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rohrabacher
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Blumenauer
     Capuano
     Castor (FL)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Giffords
     Hinchey
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  2023

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 606 I in advertently missed 
the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________