corporations no taxes at all. that's what gets protected. now, the house republicans know that their cut, cap and kill medicare plan has zero chance of passing the senate. not going to happen. not now not ever. it's already drawn a veto threat from president obama. nevertheless as this deadline looms closer and closer, with those terrible consequences portended, the house republican extremists have forced this piece of political theater while ignoring serious and constructive proposals for deficit reduction such as budget committee chairman kent conrad's plan which would reduce deficits by $4 trillion, more than the

house's budget plan. we actually do better at solving the deficit than they do. but we do it with every dollar in spending cuts matched by a dollar in new revenue from closing tax loopholes and tax gimmicks. this plan would stabilize the budget would reassure the financial markets and would do so without cutting social security and medicare benefits on which our seniors rely and which all working americans are counting on. it's one of the basic freedoms we have as americans is to know that that is waiting for us. i was proud to introduce a rugs earlier this month which would express the sense of the senate that and i -- quote -- "--" any agreement to reduce the budget deficit should not include cuts to social security benefits or medicare benefits."

i'm grateful that senators blumenthal sherrod brown franken, boxer and gillibrand have sponsored with me in joining on the resolution and i invite all my colleagues to do the same. mr. president, the conrad budget proves that we need not attack medicare and social security to deal with our deficit. his budget is living proof that there is reason to attack medicare and social security to get through our deficit situations. that attack on medicare and social security is a willful and unnecessary act by the republicans. well rhode islanders in increasing numbers have been writing to me urging me to continue fighting to preserve

these retirement programs, to preserve this infrastructure of american freedom. time is running short and americans are counting on their elected representatives to do the right thing. well, it is time to do the right thing. let me close by reading a piece from an editorial in the "economist" magazine." the economist "magazine is a very conservative publication. and it is very much in the favor of free markets. i would say by and large it is a republican journal. here is what "the economist" says about the situation we are in now. "the sticking point is not on the spending side.

it is because the vast majority of republicans driven on by the wilder eyed members of their party and the caw could have cacophony of media are clinging to the idea that not a single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax take." this "the economist" says, is economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical. even ronald reagan raised taxes when he needed to do so and the closer you look, "the economist" magazine continues the more unprinted the republicans look. earlier this year, house republicans produced a report

noting that an 85% to 15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidation consolidations, according to historical evidence. the white house is offering an 83% to 17% split. hardly a huge distance. and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates only from eliminating loopholes. if the republicans were really tax reformers "the economist" magazine continues they would seize this offer. both parties have in recent months been guilty of fiscal recklessness "the economist" concludes, but it ends with this sentence. "right now though, the blame falls clearly on the republicans. independent voters should take

note." so it is not just democratic senators coming to the floor to point out that the crisis we are at is an unnecessary crisis, it is a manufactured crisis, it is a crisis driven by extremism and it is a crisis that threatens the survival of medicare and social security, two corner stone programs in the economic security and in the freedom of ordinary americans. i thank the chair and i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president i now ask unanimous consent that the veterans affairs committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 1383 and the senate proceed to its consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 1383, an act to

temporarily preserve higher rates for tuition and fees for programs of education at nonpublic institutions, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that a murray amendment which is at the desk be agreed to the bill as amended by the murray agreement be agreed to -- sorry, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of senate resolution 87 and the senate proceed to its consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 87, designating the year of 2012 as the international year of

cooperatives. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to, the resolution be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening debate and any statements related to the resolution be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 234 which was introduced earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 234, relative to the death of william f.hildenbrand former secretary of the senate. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. whitehouse: mr. president i further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the record at the appropriate place. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. whitehouse: i now ask unanimous consent mr. president, that the senate proceed to senate resolution 235 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 235, designating 2011 as the year of the family caregiver. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and any statements be placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president i now ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of senate resolution 236 which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 236, designating september 11 as national spinal cord injury awareness month. the presiding officer: the senate shall proceed to the measure. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president i understand that h.r. 2553 has

been received from the house and is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: h.r. 2553, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the airport and airway trust fund, and so forth and for other purposes. mr. whitehouse: i ask for its second reading and object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be read for the second time on the next legislative day. mr. whitehouse: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:00 a.m. on friday, july 22. that following the prayer and pledge the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed

expired and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. that following any leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to h.r. 2560, the cut cap and balance act, with the time until 10:00 a.m. equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. further, that at 10:00 a.m., the majority leader be recognized. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i am advised to inform the senate that tomorrow morning the majority leader will make a motion to table the motion to proceed to h.r. 2560. therefore, senators should expect a roll call vote at approximately 10:00 a.m. to accommodate senators on both sides, this vote will be longer than usual. mr. president, if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it

adjourn under the provisions of senate resolution 234 as a further mark of respect to the memory of the late william f.hildenbrand, former secretary of the senate. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:00 a.m., friday, july 22 and does so as a further mark of respect to the memory of the late william f.hildenbrand former secretary of the test

earlier house and senate republicans called on the senate to approve the deficit reduction

plan passed by the house earlier this week. the measure they call cut cap and balance would allow a debt ceiling increase tied with immediate cuts and balanced budget constitutional amendment. democratic senate majority leader harry reid said he plans on holding a vote to table or killed the gop plan. this republican news conference is 45 minutes. >> it's like posing for a photo in a family reunion. [laughter] >> i'd like to thank everyone for joining us today. this is a difficult time for our country, and there are those in putting all of us here including almost all of our read cookbooks and colleagues on the senate and house who have listened to the call of the american people. they've expressed number-one

some difficult things might arise if we don't raise the debt limit. on the of the hand permanent structural finding reform. so the way we spend money in this town we will be back in the same position, and that could end up hurting our economy just as much work even more than if we didn't raise the debt limit. either option raising it without limits or not raising it carries with it certain perils. but there's many who believe the peril lines without significant limits. to that end, we've proposed in the house and senate the cut cap and balance act passed by the republican controlled house of representatives tuesday night. it passed with bipartisan support. five democrats in the house of representatives joined with the overwhelming majority of republicans in the house of representatives. it contains of course not only

immediate spending cuts for the discretionary spending, but also intermediate terms statutory spending caps towards a balanced budget and it conditions the debt limit on those two conditions and the passage by congress of the balanced budget amendment of the constitution. it's an issue of the state of ratification. the third part is so important because we know that as members of congress we lack the power to bind the future congress. we can't make spending cut decisions now and simply say i am sure that the converse in january of 2013, and of 2015 2017 and so forth will follow what we've said. the only real way to find the congress is by amending the law of the laws. the u.s. constitution which one congress cannot ignore. the only way to do it, the only way we are going to solve this crisis is the only way we will be able to restore financial stability and fiscal

responsibility to america. so to that end we passes through the house, we want to pass it in the senate and are going to have a vote in a couple of days and we want to make very clear this is not just the best plan on the table for addressing the debt limit this is the only plan. there is no other plan anyone has offered reduced for the legislation since moving through with substantial support in both houses of congress and hundreds of interest groups across the country, so i'm going to turn it over to my friend, jim jordan, the chairman of the republican study committee in the house of representatives. >> let me just say this, the so-called gang of six plan they're my concern. first any time you have a gang meeting behind closed doors these are not good things. second, understand the basic premise. raise the debt ceiling now and converse promises to cut spending leader. raise taxes now and congress will promise to cut spending

later. conagra is promising to read this is not your spouse making a promise or family making a promise or your future making a promise this is congress making a promise to read this is not going to fly with of the american people certainly not with folks in the house. second, as senator lee pointed out, there's one place and put on paper, one plan that has been debated, one plan passed by congress, one plan that has bipartisan support one plan that fixes the problem and that is the cut cap and balance plan. my message is simple. harry reid, bring it up for a vote, not procedural gangs, have the courage to put it out there and let the senate debate. they are great debaters. let it happen. bring it up for a vote. let the american people see over the weekend this debate. let them hear about what the balance is all about and i think to do that, we can win. thank you. >> i want to congratulate

members of the house of representatives and senator leak and the 37 republican senators who sponsored the cut cap and balance proposal. we have to jobs before us in the united states congress. one is to take a significant step to reduce our debt so that washington stops spending money we don't have and the second is to honor our financial obligations. cut cap and balance will do both. it's already passed the house and is being debated in the senate. will be voted on this week and it can be set to the president and will have republican support. it needs the support of democratic members of the senate and it needs the support of president obama and if we have it we can take a significant step to stop spending money we don't have and at the same time honor our financial obligations of the united states. >> i congratulate my house colleagues on doing something they said couldn't be done. everybody said you can't get 218 votes to pass a plan through the

house of representatives and they did and they got substantially more than that and now we are going to have the vote on it in the senate giving it was ironic we were listening to the floor debate and the chairman of the senate budget committee got up and was denouncing a balanced budget amendment as a bad idea. why do we need to do this and amend the constitution which incidentally is the same argument made 15 years ago when this was debated. but the answer is the democrats' failure to pass the budget in over 800 days is exhibit number one. and why we need a balanced budget amendment. this place lacks the discipline that's necessary to make the hard choices. it works in almost every state of the union and work here in washington, d.c.. cut cap and balance is the correct approach because this is fundamentally a spending problem. it's not about revenues as the white house would like to suggest. it's about getting the congress spending under control. cutting spending today, capping it and then putting in place once and for all the balanced budget amendment that would

ensure future generations are not going to inherit a massive burden of debt. >> a press conference is not a plan. this is a plan that will deal with our fiscal crisis right now and i want to commend my colleagues in the house for passing this. this bill if it passes will end the business as usual in washington because would put forward spending caps with real fees', spending reductions right now and ensure that we bring forward a balanced budget amendment, put that question to the people of this country because we know what they are going to say. they are going to say yes please live within your means, washington triet stop borrowing money from other countries, and let's make sure that we preserve the greatest country on earth. so, i hope that my colleagues in the senate will pass this important measure. the only measure on the table right now and an important one again, to stop what has been

happening down pure in washington and get our fiscal house in order to read some call the police commons of living within our means there's a poster that had, since the time my kids were born and shared with them and it's a good philosophy for all of us. it's called the twopenny difference. it says if you earn a dollar and spend 99 cents from your okay. spend a dollar and you're heading for trouble. today's spending seems more fashionable than saving but once this call for money management has been called for its deficit spending. whatever it's called of leased to inevitable headaches for people for companies and even the government. and that's where we are today. and that's why i'm proud to co-sponsor the proposal but we are talking about, cut cap and balance. and i am so appreciative of the colleagues in the house for passing this. we need to pass it in the senate. >> thank you. i want to thank senator leave. a few weeks ago we had a pledge of what we wouldn't do, and i

said to the senator let's dhaka up what we would do and he came up with this idea, this legislation but i'm pleased to co-sponsor with he and now 36 other republicans in the senate. and it -- what does it do? it cuts the non-defense discretionary spending back to late 20005 fy 06 levels. let's us read prioritize within that 2011 needs. it caps some categories of the budget, develops and caps categories of the budget for ten years and during that ten years the balanced budget amendment would have time to be ratified and phased in to where we get a balanced budget. as somebody said what we would have done this 15 years ago? we wouldn't be facing this today. one vote in the senate 15 years ago would have allowed the balanced budget amendment to go to the states and all of them but one have a balanced budget amendment. i think they would like to see their representatives in washington, the senators and representatives live with of the same reality they have to live

with which is the same reality the american families have to live with as the former with of the house i kept saying -- degette telling us what can pass in the house? they are not prepared to pass anything. jim jordan and his colleagues prepared to say what they plan to do. the vote to raise the debt limit. if we change the behavior. and cut cap and balance is the best way to change the behavior. in this the only plan there. i just spoke on the floor, and one of my good friends on the other side who spoke before me talked about what we should be talking about today which was overall tax reform. i don't believe the senate before that had a committee. this is not about what we ought to be talking about. this is not about the plans people don't have. this is about the plans people to have come and the house has passed it and the senate should follow soon and would go a long way toward the map that solves this problem. >> without the change our country is going to become

green. what brought us here is the election of november, 2010. if the election were not about the size and scope of the government what was it about? to the house members, it's a failure promising the mandate. if anybody listen to the campaign and expected list and what you see with cut cap and balance, you were not listening. so, to the house colleagues who won in 2010, to the house leadership, you have kept your promise to the american people to change washington. congratulations. to the senate, are we to be the body that resists change that won't even allow one amendment to this bill? are we going to become the enemy of change? i hope and pray the senate will embrace a debate that has been long overdue, give every colleague in the senate a chance to express themselves about how to change america before it is too late. so to the leadership in the senate, don't let this moment

pass. don't become the enemy of the american people who want to see their government change before it's too oily. i am convinced if we have a robust d date in the senate that we will eventually get the votes necessary to change the government. for the better. one final fought to get how much evidence does the american people need before they realize that congress is never going to balance the budget without somebody making us? 75% of the american people brought a balanced budget amendment to the constitution because they know that neither party is going to do the hard work necessary to achieve the balance without some discipline that's been whacking. to the house colleagues, the senate hasn't been the best partner we could have been, that's about to change. you're going to be proud of the senate republicans.

>> look, there isn't anything this country can't do. if we set our mind to it and get together and work together to try to solve these tremendous problems. we know that the spending the skyrocketing debt, and the liberals have one answer and that is to raise taxes and that isn't going to do it yet so i want to compliment our colleagues in the house for passing this cut, cap and balance bill and i believe we have to bring it in the constitutional amendment. now i've been involved in every constitutional amendment the last 35 years, and to balance the budget and twice we come within one vote. the last time was 1997. we had 67 votes as i walked in the floor we lost one vote in the last minute. just think of the difference had we passed the balanced budget amendment we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today. i want to compliment everyone here for the work they are doing to try to get some fiscal

constraint and responsibility to the country and i want to certainly congratulate the house for the great work that they have done. >> i was governor for ten years and new to the senate. one thing we have to do every single year is balance our budget, live within our means. so this not only addresses the problem now getting on top of this deficit and debt problem now, but it makes sure that we stay on top of the problem. the other thing is accusing got it, we are asking everybody to get involved. because once we pass it it then goes out to the states. the balanced budget amendment aspect goes out to the states. and we give everybody throughout the whole country an opportunity to say what they think, and we believe they are going to say balance your budget of the government and keep it balanced. and that's the way we should be doing business here. we should be asking the american people to participate with us.

that is exactly what this legislation does. saddam thanks to our associates in the house for their good work, and we look forward to doing everything we can to pass this legislation and get on top of this deficit and debt for the country and the future of the country >> i'm glad to be here for a number of reasons. number one, we actually are doing something constructive to date. tomorrow, we are actually going to vote on something the would solve our problems. but i want to say that for this last year i've spent a lot of time working on the cap act the of you know that it's by far bicameral and even though the particular cap component of the bill has some different tax characteristics to it it builds on something that i have spent six or seven months working on and that is putting a fiscal straitjacket in place for us to

lower the amount of spending over a decade something that's very reasonable and doable. i want to thank the house for sending over the bill the way they did. and i hope what lindsey graham said happens. i hope we have a debate, because what they've said is they haven't laid out specifically how reconstitution all amendment has to be. the fleet out the qualifications, the characteristics that it ought to have come and to me that is exactly the kind of debate that we ought to be having here in the senate, and we ought to talk about what should those characteristics be. should there be a constitutional amendment on spending? should there be a constitutional amendment on how we raise taxes and a constitutional amendment on actually having a balanced budget? i cannot imagine why the united states senate wouldn't want to take this up, debate it amend it get our democratic colleagues to put in place some of their faults and i am thrilled we have this opportunity. i want to thank them for their leadership and look forward to working with them in the future

and on this specifically. thank you very much. >> thank you for your leadership and all the other members of the senate have co-sponsored. the georgia delegation that have been our workers in the house working yesterday on what you've done. most of them serve the georgia legislature. georgia has cut $5 billion in the last four years from 22 billion to 17 billion. why? because the constitution says you cannot spend more than you take in. we don't have a rise in debt because the constitution says you can't borrow what you don't have. and our people are engaged in the government to the it's time we had a mechanism to engage the american people back in this whole process, constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget and mike is right the flexibility for the negotiation is there. that's the genius of the proposal. it's time the answer the question the american people have been asking: if not when when? is not true who? it's time to get back to fiscal

restraint we know this country needs. thank you. >> the last 31 years i've been running a business and not only direct the balanced budget you also have to run a surplus. when you come to washington d.c. how incredibly broken this town is and the budget process is pretty unbelievable. now if we are going to solve our fiscal problem here is when to be a two-step process. the first step really is instilling that part spending caps the controls to enforce washington to start prioritizing spending for the very first time. that's exactly what cut, cap and balance does. and in the end bust just passing the balanced budget amendment we send that to the states and we let the american people decide whether they want to impose the fiscal discipline on washington. i'm happy to let the american people decide that and i'm sure they know what it will be. again, thank you to all of the house colleagues for passing this and making it possible to debate in the senate.

now it's time for the senate to act and i hope we do it wisely. scaap i would like to issue a challenge to the president harry reid, the democrats and the senate. let's for once have an open public debate about a plan that would solve this debt limit problem. we can't vote on speeches, we don't need any more behind closed doors secret meetings where the president is trying to tell people what he believes and what we believe and nothing ever in sutphen riding. there's only one bill in writing and only 1i think can pass the house and it's coming to the senate. we are asking for the motion to proceed to debate, and as has been offered, the democrats can control the floor they can control the debate that adds amendments as they will. we won that debate. we want americans to see what we are for. no more empty rhetoric. we have the bill, we have a

solution to get its the only one that can be passed before the august 2nd deadline. so we are challenging the president and harry reid let's have an open debate. let's show americans where we are. i think republicans would be proud for americans to know we are ready to solve the problem and we have the build to do it. >> i'm a co-sponsor of this bill. this is the only build that has come out of the house that has passed the house and will raise the debt limit. it's the only one that has a chance of meeting the august 2nd deadline. there are other ideas out there. the gang of six wasn't intended to be time for the debt limit. there's no way it can be tied to the debt limit before august 2nd. this is our opportunity. this is one that has passed the house. the question i would have is why

would anybody not want to solve our problem? why would anybody not want to have a balanced budget amendment? there is no rationalization to add other than to say you don't want us to live within our means or to solve our problems. those the would vote no against proceeding on this vote what you are saying is you want us to continue down the road to bankruptcy. the other important thing about this bill is this sends the signal to the agency that is well above what they think we have to do to keep from being downgraded. raising the debt limit won't raise us from being downgraded. the significant thing in this bill would. >> i am here today to support the effort both in terms of the substance, the common sense approach, cutting and then capping and having a balanced budget requirement pretty sensible, what most americans are looking for but also to support the idea the senate needs to start debating these issues.

i would hope what would result here is we would have a robust the date. amendments would be offered. democrats will allow this to go forward so we could dhaka the issue. i've been here six months and frankly we haven't done much on the floor of the senate but it has related to the biggest problem we face which is our fiscal crisis at our doorstep. everyone acknowledges it now but we haven't had an honest people for it. ohio just went through a tough process of balancing its budget. we were $8 billion in the whole, and because there was a budget required and the balance we made the tough choices. legislators and the governor worked together to close the 8 billion-dollar budget gap and the did without raising taxes. the did not decrease in taxes over programs and they did it by streamlining government. it wasn't easy. it's hard to prioritize and particularly to falafel because we're such a deep fiscal hole but it's time that we do it. every family in america does it.

every business in america has to do it. it's time the government adheres to the same discipline. it's only common sense. i am excited about the opportunity on the floor and it's we should be giving in the united states senate and i got the end of the process we can come up with something that makes sense to deal with the problem before the economy is negatively impacted. >> we have number of house colleagues here a minute ago one of them had to leave for a vote but we thought we would hear from at least a couple of them the representatives and [inaudible] >> my own senator trying to shut down. there's lacing a person on the stage that can to washington this year to raise the debt ceiling. we can to washington this year to try to fix the government. but we came willing to compromise in order to accomplish that, and this bill

represents and that compromise the largest debt increase in the history of the nation. think about that. with lindsey graham and jim demint from south carolina supporting a plan to raise the debt ceiling by 2.4 trillion something that isn't popular des comb. but what we get in return? we get a permanent fix to the problem. a lot of folks don't know when we drafted this comegys and myself, we compromise in the language we change the cut language and the cat language and the balanced language in order to reach out to more members of our own party and the other party, and it worked. and the same thing should be able to work in the senate. a democrats who voted for the budget 15 years ago when it came up. there are a dozen democratic senators in the house and senate today voted for a sense that in march in favor of a balanced budget amendment.

it has been bipartisan in the past. it can be bipartisan again in the future. it was bipartisan last week in the house and should be bipartisan next week in the senate. this entire episode, this entire debt ceiling issue can be resolved in 48 hours it could be finished by this weekend if the senate would simply do the same thing the house did compromise pass the debt ceiling increase and a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. thank you. >> i think we listened to most of the talk shows on sunday and the weekend news. we set the debate is really about tax increases and spending cuts its of the debate. the debate is are we going to continue to allow an overweight obese federal government or are we going to spur on the muscle of the nation's economy. that is the debate. they are inconsistent with each other. so what this bill does and we are asking the senate to do now

that the house has already passed it we want them to come and bring this to the american people. let's let the american people lead us. what are we afraid of? you're going to say yes? let's give them a vote and a voice in this debate and we can get this done so i can encourage my colleagues in the senate to get this passed. thank you. >> i served for four years and every single year we have to balance the budget, we have to have a fight about whether we were going to cut spending or raise taxes. locally the last four years we won the fight and we were able to lower spending. that's what we need to here in washington, d.c.. for too long for many years both republicans and democrats have been willing to just kick the can down the road and have been willing to do things the american people are not doing and they've been willing to either raise taxes or increase spending on one side and to

still increase spending. with the american people are asking us to do today is to actually decrease spending. they want us to cut our spending, cap are spending and balance the budget. the question i have for you is what you ask people against this why is it they don't want to cut spending? why is it they don't want to cut spending and what is wrong with going to the american people and asking them asking them if they are willing to balance the budget. if they are willing to have the congress pass the balanced budget amendment and pass it in their states. that is all we are asking them to do is let the states decide. there's nothing wrong with that. the president recently said a couple of days ago that we don't need a balanced budget amendment to do our jobs. if we didn't need a balanced budget amendment to do our jobs we wouldn't have $50 trillion in debt. thank you. >> joe walsh from illinois. i'm just a freshman but i think i know two things. if we don't do something about

this debt crisis we are placing on the backs of our kids and grandkids, they will never speak to us again. the second thing i think i was politicians in both parties will not balance their books unless they are forced to cut, cap and balance is something our grandkids would be proud of and cut, cap and balance will force politicians to balance their books. there is a tie to history moving and i don't think that harry reid or president obama can stop it. thanks. >> i'm cynthia from wyoming. the eyes of the world are on our country right now. they depend on this country to do what it says and say exactly what we mean. here is what we mean. we are not going to default on our debt. they can expect the full faith and credit of the united states to be behind every investment

they make in this country. the rating agencies say they need structural changes as well as an increase in the debt ceiling and spending cuts and what structural change will come in the form of a balanced budget amendment that the people in this country can vote on so their voice will make it different going forward for generations to come. now is a special time in our country and i am so proud of dhaka house of representatives and now the senate for its dedication to the solution that it's found, and i want to thank these senators for joining us. we are with you and i want to turn back to the senator from utah who kicked the soften the senate. >> thank you very much. at the bottom line is we cannot allow for this entire process to

be stopped. stop the only proposal moving forward to address this issue simply because the democrats refuse to give 13 votes we need in order to pass it, in order at a minimum to get this for an up or down vote. let's open the floor to questions. >> you know how the democrats and but the senate feel about the legislation and they need this across-the-board. are you comfortable bringing that board and risking this default, this bankruptcy in the 11 days which you say you want to head off sometime in the future. >> i'm not comfortable with allowing that to happen. that's why i introduced this legislation. now, if they don't like aspects of it, they can come and talk to me about an amendment process. they can come and talk about adjustments they might want to make within certain parameters that we have outlined. but there's no reason for them to hold us up against that risk simply because it happens to be sponsored by a group of people

within our next to their name. >> the fact of the matter as he loaded to if he does have the senate for some chance she's already going to veto it so that's kind of the reality working at this point and the broad debate over this debt ceiling. of the new cnn poll says 51% of americans say the responsibility of the debt ceiling isn't raised by august 2nd will rely on republicans. are you comfortable having six responsibility or is the blame being put on the parties if you don't move to raise the debt ceiling? >> as to the first question, why the president would ever say i'm willing to let the debt limit expire even the republicans are willing to come up with one which is the result of a substantial compromise which this was. a lot of compromise by a lot of members of the senate and members of the house who are republican who put their name on this because they want it to

compromise. why the president would say it would make sense to veto this legislation simply because it has a balanced budget amendment as a condition precedent is beyond my ability to understand. the american people are overwhelmingly supportive of the idea of the balanced budget amendment and i don't know why they would put that on such a condition. >> so if either he or democrats in the senate want to stop it because of that i did they do so at their own political peril and apparel of the american people and the american economy. >> they stopped the bridge to nowhere. how many votes did we get? [laughter] it's like everybody was in the french resistance that is when the war was over in france. the political reality in this place -- [laughter] the political reality in this place is subject to changing of a dime. and here's the question we need to ask the house members.

how could they do less clacks how could after the 2010 election anybody that got elected on the mandate they received on the rhetoric they offered the american people do anything less? and the president is asking us to do is basically give up the best opportunity i've seen in my political lifetime to stop the country from becoming coming and the reason he doesn't want the balanced budget amendment in the constitution is because that is the end of the perpetual expansion of the federal government. and that's the heart of the matter. and the reason we are willing to compromise is because that's what made america great. so if you are thinking we are cutting too much, have a debate and show how you would cut less and still change the country to the if you don't like the cat sweden post come up with one of your own that get us where we want to go. you could be smarter than us that we will never know until you get on the floor and debate. and if you think that you can

convince the american people the congress after 40 years of failing to the balanced budget as all of a sudden going to do you are on the wrong side of history. as a, i relish of this debate and i hope we can find common ground that if he vetoes of this then let's have the fight that his been doing this country. before it is too late. mr. president you could be a historic precedent. you have a chance to bring about structural change working with republicans and democrats that has never been present since i have been here. don't let this moment pass. and if you think the people in the house and the people in the senate who believe we are going to become if we don't do something or going to give up because the polls, you are wrong. >> what does it tell you so? >> let me make a comment on the polls. republicans have made a mistake working in good faith with the president in the secret

negotiations because of weld him to get the upper hand. he would define every day what we believe and he put everything on the table, even though we never did. and so a lot of the polls reflect the fact that he has had the upper hand and the public message so far. that changed this week. and i just got an e-mail about the new polls that came out about 66% of americans supporting the cut, cap and balance balance type of plan. wednesday presented the plan with the republican idea is things are going to start to change. we know the president wants to play the blame game. he's manufactured this crisis. he used a working group to put aside against the deadline. she needs someone to blame for his economy. but we can't be concerned first about the blame. we are here because we are trying to do the right thing for the country and solve the fiscal problem and the president increasing the debt limit but he's going to have to compromise with us on permanent structural

change because even the leading agencies and this isn't all reported disease raise the debt limit, but if we raise it without credible long-term deficit reduction measures they are going to downgrade our bond. so, we need to respond to what they are saying by more than just raising the debt limit. that could do more harm than of raising it all. as we challenge the president and the democrats let's have an open debate then we will see who the public is really with. >> i want to make one comment. if the senate functions the way it should like it did in 2005 2006 and early 2007, we wouldn't be here. the whole last 18 months is about not taking votes you don't want to take not having any votes. we don't have a budget. why do we not have a budget? not because they didn't want to put one together. so the point is i am willing to go out across this country even as the polls are 70% against what we are doing the fact is

you can't solve our problem unless you do what the cut, cap and balance wants to do. so it doesn't matter what the polls are. we've got to fix the country, and this is the only viable plan right now that will do that. and i will bet you a porterhouse steak if it lands on his desk he will sign this. [laughter] >> you are a member of the state. now you are supporting this plan? >> i supported this plan before the gang of six, and i supported this plan before i introduced my own. >> now on the senate side of the plan it seems to have more attraction. estimate it has a direction for the plan but there is no realistic expectation the gang of six is ever going to accomplish anything by the time we need to. so the president said he would never take a short-term increase. what did they say yesterday? that's how good the veto threat is. he's going to do what is necessary to fix this country come and if he gets presented this bill, he will sign it.

>> centrally? a lot of american people are out there frustrated with congress that it's taking a long time and they say the democrats are really liking the plan and what is the point of introducing it? what would you say to those people? >> it's like saying likely super bowl when you have one team expected to be the other one? but it's even worse because what happens is when we vote we are held accountable and we can't be held accountable. so there are a lot of those people who oppose this for reasons that they've never fully articulate it to me beyond saying things like it can't pass or we just need to do our job rather than have an amendment to the constitution passed, and i have to ask how is that working out for us? but all of that is a side show intended only to obfuscate the fact that there are people who are going to vote against this. and when they vote against it will be held accountable. as the approach it i hope and i fully expect many of them will

change their mind and they will recognize they can't stand to face their voters, their constituents. don't they serve and say i just couldn't support this. i had to allow us to move past the debt limit because i couldn't stomach the balanced budget amendment of the constitution. >> stifel. [inaudible] >> he said the vote would be on the amendment and also said that as well. goodbye of r. dee. [laughter] >> we've got your back. >> it's been tested. i have to remember this. [laughter] >> he said the vote would be this weekend it's all on the schedule and -- >> i will let my house friends speak to that on the senate side

i will just tell you in either house of the timing on a vote on the balanced budget amendment itself will i suspect be determined by what happens to the cut, cap and balance act. >> [inaudible] >> yes. >> how many? >> if you. i'm not going to give exact numbers or identities. >> do you have any prediction on the conversation how many votes on the democrats you might get? >> nope. >> that's deutsch more questions. >> this and it talked about the veto [inaudible] just to get congress to vote on the debt limit is it realistic to having a seat on the balanced budget amendment is less than ten days? is that realistic to raise the

debt limit to come back again -- sanibel the more reason to do it quickly. thus far has the votes as far as the margin in the house goes, when we are faced with a when we are faced with a situation in which we are otherwise clean to be blowing past the debt limit deadline all i think you will find a lot of people a lot more willing to consider voting for this especially since the american people overwhelmingly to support a balanced budget amendment. the fact that we are in this difficult position being in the deadline is unfortunate. there's a lot of those that have been calling all year long for robust debate and discussion surrounding the debt limit and surrounding the desire to tie the passage of the balanced budget amendment to the debt limit. for reasons i still don't completely understand. i'm still a freshman. we haven't gotten to this sooner but we are here now and i think we can use that as a

reason people on a vote for. >> your question actually amazes me because you are asking if it's realistic for us to pass something that has been debated in the house for 20 years. in the senate for 20 years and we actually have bills active. you don't think it's unrealistic to pass a plan that is contingent on bills that are not even drafted. you don't -- >> is different amendments that can be voted on. >> we can vote on all of them and see what passes but yet you are all putting your hopes and letting the american people put their hopes on the gang of six plan that hasn't even been drafted. there is no legislation. this was the to the question why the american people are frustrated because you are not telling the american people the truth. you are not letting them know that this president has not a single that he's willing to agree to in public. not a single cut. and we need to ask you guys to start asking the president can

you name one cut that you are willing to agree with the house and the senate clacks stomach what we translate for my colleagues is it is realistic. the american people support the concept of here. it's very realistic. >> ha when the debt limit is not raised [inaudible] is that plan ultimately about the house republican leaders to get behind and what does that bring? >> you're not asking whether or not i would support the fallback plan. >> you said you won't. but you said you would have redefault the would destroy in

2012. i'm asking you if the plan goes forward and it looks like it is on a train over here impacting the house as well. >> you're asking me to foretell the future and that is difficult to do. i will say that i believed all along and said all along that it would be a mistake as a matter of policy to raise the debt limit without conditions attached. no strings attached sort of debt limit increase. i've also believed from the very beginning that it would in addition to being a policy mistake being the wrong thing to do for the american people. but also be a huge political mistake for the republicans to support a clean debt limit increase with no strings attached. i see that plan, that fallback plan as you described it as the functional equivalent of a no strings attached clean debt limit increase and all i therefore would regarded both as the back policy and very bad for the republican party. thank you autrey much.

.. representative bill jai singh from michigan. and we just had an extended informational session with four members of the financial services committee.

brian reid chief economist for the investment company institute, dm: from the derivatives trading clearing corporation and also shani brummer shani from jpmorgan securities. and we learned about some of that potential consequences of various decisions that we might make in the congress regarding our approach to the debt ceiling. the members who were present were free to ask questions and i would say that it was a lively discussion. so we will take your questions and if you have questions for anyone advice, just direct them to the appropriate number and we'll all together. >> one of the perception that this meeting the purpose of it is people who work on wall street to credit ratings can tell members of congress who might not believe it or be on board not to mess up the debt

limit bill matter what happens if it have to be raised. >> we had a dispassionate and objective discussion from a diverse set of points of view about what the potential consequences might be. check the related if the debt ceiling is not raised by august 2nd. and also, potential implications of the long-term approach that we take as well to this issue. clearly the markets are watching and we are well aware that an approaching it it very thoughtfully. >> it was very clear to me that one of the other messages that was unmistakable with that if we kick the can down the road, it's about outcome for u.s. treasury and we have an affirmative obligation in real opportunity to take a real change in spending trajectory and i had the opportunity to speak agency who confirm the same thing. if we raise the debt ceiling

without a change in american spending trajectory, the debt markets will react in a negative way as well that's the message i certainly took away from today. they were very clear about that. >> real quickly, i actually voted god and set it out loud because i wanted to make sure that i was clear. any package must be credible in effect issues we have and that was also in agreement. this isn't as you're trying to save people that don't see this as a problem. i don't know of any of us who want to see any kind of default happened. the question is what is the path and how do we solve this long-term? but it's got to be a part of what we are talking about today. we don't know what the agreement is yet and certainly don't know whether it addresses those underlying issues. so that is still a lot of question marks hanging out there. but as nan said it was very

informational and to have to give and take and allow us to question how they can to get there also appeared >> did you hear members whines about the upcoming dozer anything about that? >> i think you have to ask the individual members. certainly for my own part, i'm taking all the information i am getting with the utmost seriousness in the context in my particular case of having resolved to solve this problem without raising burdens on an economy that 30 sorely in need of revival. >> is this a way for you too can stand to your constituents in a nonpartisan way that this is something you have did you to explain in favor of freezing debt ceiling how to nonpartisan experts come? >> this is a nonpartisan entirely objective meeting. that is true and the evidence

that we've heard in the analysis phase that was presented was entirely credible in search of me own part i think if we take a responsible approach to raising the debt ceiling i think i would be quite reassuring to our constituents into markets. >> was a part of the leadership on board? >> entirely independent. >> we don't know nan well enough to know that. it's >> it was independent. we are independent figures in this conference. >> this is your idea and you're planning your invitation? >> yes absolutely. we were all a team. >> one member cannot see an impression for the meetings at the 17 rollover was august 2nd did you get that impression?

>> i did not get that impression. >> it is not catastrophic? >> is my night address another sent to a nicer run them together, but there are some things that can be done. it is not the midnight august three-day, but nobody really knows exactly what the djs. other briefings we have a talked about what is going to happen on august 15. so former personally, one of the things he could do was look at in the assets we are holding from quantitative easing, qa wanted to be a way to get us through some of those days. nobody views that is long-term. >> we did not emphasize dates in this discussion. >> in terms to be willing to go for some pain that is not a proposal, mitch mcconnell's

proposal -- >> well, we are talking that was fundamental principles approach in the debt side with the short term term and long term in mind. fire more than specifically and. we have voted in the house for trained to. vast majority voted because we believe that is the sound approach that we need and hope the senate is giving a favorable consideration. >> i sent myself. i think it's quite clear based on what we just heard that obviously nobody thinks default is an option and we also want to prevent the downgrade and the stakes here are quite high. the closer we get to the deadline, the higher the pressure is even greater. you know they insisted -- as did say those folks said that we do need to deal credibly with the spending three of his country in order to affect the rate. so yes, we need to present a

default and take the best steps necessary to prevent perhaps the downgrade. i think it's important. if we remain flexible and not make statements about what we will do. >> are you asking about the size to the restructuring package that would be needed in order to prevent a future downgrade? they talk about there's no deficit reduction, even as we raise the debt ceiling. are there any particular thoughts? >> i think you can about it marter magically. clearly, for the long-term we know what we're facing in terms of our accumulating debt obligation. so i have a feeling there is a broad view that we'd like to achieve as meaningful a change in our debt trigger areas possible and i think that's a realistic way of putting it. we have an immediate challenge

obviously in terms of meaning the treasuries of the federal government obligations as a vodka sector, but certainly the long-term interiors everyone's thoughts as we consider how this government will evaluate and honor. >> one thing is that seemed based on what i heard the market responded more favorably to an active coefficient rather than an act of omission. that is something i got out of the support that we do this timely. that's what i want -- one of the big takeaways i got from the discussion. >> on match and your a little bit -- sorry sorry. even if we do with august 2 or 15 or whatever that date is if we don't take control of the long-term jurek jury that was often used in their we could still be facing the downgrade. and still that cascade effect

happens right? i mean, the cascade effect on interest rates for consumer data long-term business debt, that still could have been. so this is a two piece there. this is not just taking care of the august outline and not questioned. that is the long-term and that is going to affect interest rates as well. >> today recommend tax hikes with the spending cuts? >> absolutely not. >> they did say one thing that they thought it was important to have a bipartisan resolution. may be vested in the obvious given we have a democrat president, but they did point that out. i thought it was important to have a bipartisan resolution. >> and again the experts who were talking with us were not in any way taking a political position on this. >> did you talk about the great

value of the balance? they seem you heard the leadership impact in the senate, versions of the worst piece of legislation that's ever been handed out from the other body? >> well look we have the leadership in the house that is working actively with the leadership in the senate and with the president to arrive at a conclusion that will be we hope certainly most beneficial for all of this. i have great faith in our theaters as they negotiate through this process, cut cap and balance is a stand that we had taken because we believe in the house majority and clearly the process of thinking i've accelerating ever more as we go through these days. so we will see what the senate comes up with. >> that is quite a statement from the body that doesn't pass budget doesn't present ills a

planner passman to criticize but another body days. >> from the other health care plan that caused us to be here. we literally -- these rating agencies would've been your thoughts at that nonissue. medicare medicaid, the things driving the spending every are things that the other party hasn't talked about forever and still has not presented a plan. when they say that's really bad you have to either cry or laugh because this is the serious matter. this is about a credible plan. it isn't the headline from the gang of six. this isn't about the headline. this is what will really happen over the long term. if we don't have a plan that is real, enforceable and is going to happen, will be in a much worse place them we find ourselves today. >> i just want to address one thing. for me personally going through this conversation, my confidence is trained to come to be in a

positive was underscored because we are trying to address not just the short-term we are trying to address the long-term problem that we have. and this is about making sure we have a fragile economy not fall backwards and we can get people back to work. that's also have we move forward is cut cap, balance and grow. we could grow this economy. it's about jobs ultimately and about stabilizing it. right now are trying to figure out how we're going to do that. >> been used to be some type of bipartisan solution. he mentioned tax increases. putting tax increases aside and say revenues. they talk about adding revenues? >> again this was primarily a discussion of the potential problems that we might face in terms of our treasury bond rates, interest rates is a short and medium and long-term solution, whatever that might

comprise is not arrived at. >> you talk about solutions in the idea of finding one. did they say what elements need to be in the solution? >> primarily the existence of solution versus no solution and it is up to the house on the senate and the president to come to an agreement on this as we will and not inherently will involve the ascent of members of both parties. so i think you can assume that's what that means. >> we talked about consequences, not so much solutions, but if there is not a reasonable solution -- [inaudible] >> thank you. >> thank you all. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> senate majority leader reid plans a vote tomorrow to table the masher. coming up we'll hear from budget committee chairman kent conrad who said earlier it will not be possible to enact a bipartisan "gang of six" plan for spending cuts, tax overhaul and a benefit program by the august 2nd to fall deadline. will also hear from republican senators mark rubio and jeffe sessions who serves on the budget committee. >> mr. president i rise today to discuss the legislations th that's come over from the house

ofat i representatives. mos i may say i consider some of the most ill considered legislation that i've ever seen come over from the other side. this legislation has beenn hastily thrown together. never had a hearing.ion and yet proposes to amend the i constitution of the united states in dramatic and draconians. ways. mr. president, this is trulyave dangerous business. i have been part of the fiscal that commission. i was part of the majority of those supporting its conclusions to reduce our debt from what it would otherwise be a $4 trillion. 11 of democra us supported the plan independent fight democrats, five republicans, onefor the independent.ix, thre i've been for the last six months active member of the

group of six three democrats, three republicans. we've reduced and released a plan to reduce the debt from what i would otherwise be byc sen $3.7 trillion. i have been part of putting out the democratic senate budget committee plans and i am proud to say would reduce the debt from what i would otherwise be by $4 trillion. i have spoken my entire career 25 years in here in the united states making the dangers of deficits and debt, the risk of the debt threat to our country. i believe passionately thatome we've got to find a way to come together to reduce the danger of these runaway dads. mr. president, this legislation that has come over from the house cannot be the answer. it is not bipartisan.

it is super partisan. it is totally done on one sideone ofon the ledger and mr. president it will not pass. it will not become law and it should not. now, let's understand the cou context within which wereorrowing operating. first of all as a country we are borrowing 41 cents of every dollar that we spend. our gross debt is now 100% of our gross domestic product. the best economist in the country has learned is that once you get to a best economist in the country has learned is that once you get to a dead is more than 90% of our gros the best economist in the country has learned is that once you get to a dead is more than 90% of our gross domestic product, your future economic prospects are in danger. future economic growth iser. that reduced. been d that's why, mr. president, i have been deeply involved insan attempt every serious bipartisan attempt to re dduce deficit and debt.

this proposal has come over from the house. not having had a single hearing not in this body, not one is truly radical.nt mr. president, again i say to my to colleagues we have an urgent need to act but we shouldn't th panic. unfortunately, i think that's what the house did when they send test this past week that concoction of ideas that don'tr threa hold together, don't add up and i would actually further threaten the economic recovery. there is no denying that we faceebt a debt that. of this is what the chairman of the ional joint chiefs that in june of last year. our national debt is our biggest national security threat.agencies and now we have had the rating agencies were not that if we under

don't cact we don't get our debt and deficits under control, and they are going to downgrade u.s. deaths reading, the reading of u.s. debt. mark the rating of how the markets respond to our debt offers. that would have a very seriousand, impact on what we paid to buy her money. remember, for every 1% increase in interest rates we pay it adds $1.3 trillion to the debt. here is what the rating agenciesng on t u.s have said. we may lower the long-term rating on the u.s. by one orn the more notches into the aa category in the next room if wehe administr conclude that congress and theat administration have achied at not achievedt the a credible solution to thiseseeable debt burden and are not likely that's to achieve one in the future. mr. president, that is why ijoined

t joined the group of 66 months ago to produce a bipartisan plan the to deal with the debt threat.rats we've released that plan now., many three democrats, threeth s republicans and many more of her colleagues on both sides have joined, have said they are way with as. t we've got a way forward, but has it's certainly not theonsidering legislation that has come over here that we are considering today from the house ofity to res representatives. this legislation would restricty the ability and actually compound their clients. it uses social security funds to calculate on in subjects that we program to the same price asll other federal spending, even though we all understand thatt. totally separate from the rest of the budget.ed

and it shifts ultimate decisions on budgeting to you budgeting to unalike event unaccountable judges. what a mistake that would be. it requires the stateo ratification process that could take years to complete. we don't have years to do with this problem.tica i fear this is mostly political theater that has been sent to us rather than a serious response to the problem. perhaps most alarming before us could turn a recession into a depression. how mr. president, we need to dighis very, very carefully how we respond to this staff that we need to react in a serious and s ta credible way and we've got topart othe f is stand together with our colleagues. that's why i was proud to be a part of the fiscal commission

because we produced a plan that would get our debt under control and start reducing it and thereve were 11 mass five democrats, five republicans and one to th independent, a majority of that commission agree to that plan. his wife and proud to be part ofto the group assists three democrats to republicans here produce a plan that control our debt and began to wear it down. mr. president, none of those partisan plans and none of the other bipartisan plans with risks turning a recession into athe depression. but that is exactly what the legislation would do. why do i say that? respec well, here is one of the most thi respected scholars in this town from the american enterprise institute.amendmt tha he called the balanced budget amendment that has come from the house a really idea. seducti this is what he said. more

few ideas are more subjective on rea the surface and more district is here's in reality than a balanced budget amendment. here's why.ements. nearly all of our states the states are balanced budget requirements. ra that means when theis economy slows, states are forced to raise taxes or slash spending it just the wrong time. when providing a fiscal drag when what is needed is countercyclical policy toe stimulate the economy. in fact, the fiscal drive from the states in the 2009 2010.that with barely countered by the federaleant the stimulus plan. that meant the federal stimulus was nowhere near what was imane needed, but far better than doing tha nothing. now imagine that scenario with a federal drag instead. as mr. orenstein doesn't just imagine now. the "washington post" in an editorial from last friday said

rewriting the constitution is the wrong way to deal with theust bad. ref let me just reference them their second column these words. worse yet, the latest versionomy. it would impose an absolute cap on spending as a share of the 18% economy. it would prevent federal expenditures from exceeding 18% of the gross genetic product in any the year.acks most unfortunately, the a amendment?the governmt a cause, letting the government exceedsimit that limit to strengthen a struggling economy. no matter how shaky the state of the economy no matter how shakyld the state of the union rather,y policymakers would be prevented t from adopting emergency spending such as the extension of a unemployment insurance and other countercyclical expenses that cushion have helped cushion the blow of e the current economic downturn. in

mr. president two of the most distinguished economists in our andk country alan blinder, former deputy chairman of the federal reserve and mark sandy who was presiial an adviser to john mccain's t gover presidential campaign studied the government responds to the latest financial crisis. here's what they concluded. effects we find that it effects on real gdp jobs and inflation are huge and probably averted what could have been called great 2.0 depression 2.0.s this amendment before i would have stopped the governmentalnation's response, which two of the nations most distinguished economists tell us a very good great depression 2.0.when a when all is said and done the financial and fiscal policiesyers will cost taxpayers the a financial sound.

as muc but not nearly as much as most had feared and not nearly as much as if policymakers have not had good at all. had not if the comprehensive policy responses saved the economy from another depression as weth estimate they were well worth cos the cost.that mr. president, this amendment that is before us now would have prevented this response wouldreat have prevented diverting a great direction. mr. president here is the workith of the ndn blinder with respect to what would've happened with fe jobs absent the federal response.ut t jazz with the fheederal responsense, green line without the federal response, the red line 8 millionederal viewers jobs without the federala response to prevent a depression

mr. president unemployment what would've happened without the federal responseg according to this detailed study by zandie -- by and blinder without the federal response, unemployment today with the 16% instead of the 9%. we would be in a depression.real and mr. president, that is the hard kin reality and the amendment before us would have prevented that kind of governmental response. now, mr. president, they called this plan cut cap and balance. they should have called it cuthi cap and kill medicare because that is really what this plan wouldwouldit wdo.ould it would cut cap and balancell i medicare. why do i say that? propol well, it if we look at the house

budget proposal that underlies this plan we see what happens under traditional medicare. bene fi under medicare now the beneficiary pays 25% of theirthatnder li expenses. under the republican budget plan that underlies the amendment before as medicareld beneficiaries with pay 68% of the expenses of their health care.lifies in other words somebody who is medicare eligible, qualifies for the program, pays their requireds cost pays their required co-pays their required premiums c currently pays 25% of the cost under p the plan -- the republican plan for the house within crease to 68% over time. that stance medicare on its in su head. does, instead of medicare, as normal sha

insurance does, paying the lion share, the individual would pay the lion share of their health care expenses. house repub mr. president, the underlying house plan republican plan that underlies this amendment would out-oet cos increase the out-of-pocket cost to a medicare beneficiary from $6000 to $12500. that would be held spending for amedicare typical 65-year-old inst beneficiaryead in 2022. instead of paying $6000 under current law they would pay $12,500. now somebody who has been numbers and following the details will look at these numbers and say well senator conrad, what you have out by mayor haas outlined a mor republican plant in what has been sent to them in the the

amendment actually it's even more trichotomy and then the even house republican plan. more. it goes even further. cuts medicare even more. and yes, mr. president, that's true. i havest understated veryld substantially the devastation that would be done to medicaree under the amendments before us. that but how can that be? that's how it can be.spenng under t hehere is the red line shows the spending under the house gopment3 here is the red line shows the spending under the house gop budget, but in this amendment, and this legislation that has u come to us not only do they adapt the house republican budget, they then trumpet -- i they then overwrite it with the furth constitutional amendment that goes even her further. of g so here is the spending under the house republicans plan from 24% of gdp down to 1909.

bennett's leapfrogged by the provisions of the constitutional amendment that would take spending down to 18% of gdp. that from 24.1 to 18. at his age 25% cut if he took a cut across the board. shields their plan doesn't take the cut across the board. cut it shields certain things. and s o the cuts to those things that are show that have to be more trichotomy and an even deeper. mr. president, just visually, i produ thought i should produce a chart that shows what would happen if the you had to reach the limit they reach the constitutional amendment before this body on today.ll but than 18% cap on all gross domestic product spending

here's social security. that's 5% of gross domestic, as you product.ee defense and other non-hawks spending, as you can see over then y 15% dixie wellou over 15%. then you've got interest in gear you're a att t your cat. there is no money for medicare. there is no money for medicaid. there is no money for any of the if other health care economies. if they just hold harmless and social security defense and nonheth other non-health spending and of there's course we've got to pay interest on the debt there is nothing left over. that is what i call this cap c cut and kill medicare. i should have added cut cap and other

kill medicaid. cats, cat and kill every other health care account. mr. president, this plan caps spending going forward i'd trichotomy and and unrealistic levels. it fails to account for the retirement of the baby boom generation and rising health cos care costs. perhaps more remarkable it war provided no war funding for 2013 to 2021. t nothing. let me repeat that. this plan that has come over from the hospice of ill considered, so hastily thrown cr together, so lacking ined credibility that they provide war for no war funding after 2013.

does that mean they are l advocating bringing home the troops home from every location everywhere around the world? not the like a certain eye that is not pro what they've taken. they don't provide any money for it. mr. president, i don't know who slapped this thing together, but they weren't very careful in what they did. none of it adds up. it is totally make believe. this is mr. president, does not make w the least.el this is what is going to happen to the number of people eligible for medicare and social security se run running upni to 2050. eli the number of people eligible is almost going to double. wav that is the demographic tidal wave that is reality. it's not a projection.they're g these people are alive today.they'r going t

they're going to retire. they're going to be eligible. in this amendment before us makes no provision for them. so what's going to happen? they're going to shred medicare. they're going to shred medicaidal and they're going to put at risk. presidenere's social security as clear as it can be. mr. president, here's the reality we confront as a nation, spending as a share of gdp is the highest it is then in 60 years. that revenue as a share of gdp is the lowest it has been in 60 the years. both of these are facts.rue. both of these archer. our friends on the other sideof are saying, you cannot touch the revenue side of the equation,losing even if it is close in tax tax havens, going after abusive taxrolifera shelters going afterte scans that proliferate the tax code today.

they say no you can't touch that. they can't touch changes, evenrevenue side o though the revenuef is supposede lo in 60 years as a share of our0 national income. they say would take a two thirds vote and they would put it in the constitution ofed sthtae utenited states that they would require a hen two thirds vote to close any taxshelter, haven come to any shelter from any abusive tax and take a two thirds vote. growi mr. president, that's not what i learned about when i was growing up about the constitution of the united states. he didn't say anything about scams protect teen those who engage ine tax tax scans in tax shelters. but that is what this would do. mr. president the "washington post" back in may did an analysis. how did we get into this ditch that we are in a runaway debt and runaway deficits?

how did we get in this position? their conclusion after this ry study was that the biggest culprit by fire has been under version of tax revenue triggered largely by two recessions in and multiple rounds of tax cuts. together the economy and taxident bu bills enacted under former b president bush into a lesser extent by president obama wiped anticip out 6.3 trillion anticipated revenue, nearly half of the proje $12.7 trillion swing from projected surpluses to real dad. federal tax collections now stand at their their lowest level as a percentage of the economy in 60 i years. thirds in this amendment before us would require a two thirds vote to do anything about it. mr. president, let's get been serious. o as i say, i have been part off s every serious bipartisan effortcome over the last two years to comeet

up with a plan to get our debt under control. yes cut spending, yes informants revered yes to get it recovered so that we can reduce m preside ournt debt. mr. president, this plan before a us is a disaster. now, let's look at reality. the last five times the budget has been in surplus in the last 40 years revenue has been close to 20% of gdp.two-th vot e this plan would require a two revenu thirds vote to increase any revenue and revenue is up 14.5% of gdp. wow. you talk about consigninghis this

country to an endless round of economic uncertainty and an undermining of the economic position of the united states state s. just post for this thing.ost mr. president martin feldstein is one of the most conservative economists in the country hasake said we've got to take time totures n use tax expenditures tax expenditures now amount to $1.1 trillion a year. we are spending more through the tax code than we are and all appropriated spending everyhis year. and yet this amendment would vot require a twoe thirds vote to the tax change any of those tax the expenditures, to close any of the tax loopholes, to go after any of the tax havens andesiden abusive tax shelters. mr. president amis here isics at

martin felt sting professor of economics advisers under presidents reagan.e under president ran again, this is what he said. cutting tax expenditures is really the best way to reduce government spending.y t he tax expenditures is really the best way to reduce government mar gi spending.educe eliminating tax expenditures does not increase marginal rewar tax risk rates are reduced the reward fortaking. saving, investment or riskemoving taking. inntives it would also increase overall economic efficiency by removing incentives that distort private overlap spending decisions in eliminating or consolidating the large number of overlapping taxpayer subsidies would also x greatly sent the fight tax all filing in short, cutting tax expenditures is not at all like other ways of raising revenue.

and interestingly enough, every bipartisan commission has come we ought back incentives one part is dealing with her deficits andes. debt, we have to reduce tax expenditures spending by another name. you know what? t the legislation before us would require a two t thirds vote to change any of these tax expenditures.venue mr. president, because it raises revenue, raises revenue. here is where the tax expenditures go. where if the top 1% get 26% of the value of tax expense of cherries.6% of mr. president, you know these thes loopholes that have proliferated have gone to the very top and

we're going to have to reform out this type code, take a chunk they were cannot do it the same some of time to go after these offshore tax havens and tax shelters that some of the very best among us u the most fortunate are using toin this cotry. dodge with a legitimately owe them this country. thi you know they call thisp, and legislation cut cap andtax balance. they should've called it preserve protect and defend tax havens in tax shelters because you that's in effect what it would she do.lt they say the go after taxpayer and tax shelters, that estatewould ta tax increase.do anything ab that increases revenue therefore it takes a two thirds vote to do anything about it. the let me say to my colleagues. a little five-story building claims to be home to 18,800 feet doing

to seven companies. buil they all say they are doing business under this littlebuilding the building. this is the most efficient building of the world.nbelieva it'sbl unbelievable. 18,800 to seven companies say they are doing business out of this little building. is that is a remarkable calm ocean and to be running 18,000 ho businesses out of this little bu t, building. how can that possibly be?s of course it's not. the only thing they run down there and said it tax scam on all the rest of us to pay what we owe. island we are not in the cayman islands.businesses either way and has no taxes that apply to these businesses.

we're right here. we are finer tax faces. these companies are dodging theirs.e mr. president, if anybody doubts that this has become a huge hemorrhage for the u.s. in treasury, here is what our own permanent subcommittee on tol loss investigations found. fro experts have estimated the total loss to the treasury fromes offshore tax evasion alone approaches $100 billion a year an including 40 to 70 billion for individuals and another billion for corporations engaging in offshore tax evasion.dollar tens of billions of dollars somewhere.aise mr. president i tell you before we raise taxes one time on any our of the rest of us who are paying

our taxes, let's go after these folks whoir are dodging their this responsibility and their obligation b to miss amendment before us would require a two thirds vote to do it. familiein mr. president, that's not the here's end of it.wh the wealthiest 400 families in the united states, here is what since happened with their tax rates their effective tax ratein since 1995. in 1995, their effective tax rate was 29.9%. by 2007 it was down to 16.6%. a wealthiest among us have had their tax rates about cut in about half. i don't know about you. my i didn't have my tax cut in half. and the vast majority of americans didn't have their taxes cut in half. but with the help of well-placed lobbyists here those with theeir tax

most fortunate, that their tax rates cut in half. say mr. president, this amendment before us would say i've taken a two thirds vote to change it. vens that's why citizen initiative protect, preserve and defend tax havens and abusive tax shelters.e mr. president, the last time the top rate was 39.6% we experienced the longest period say of uninterrupted economic growth in u.s. history. those who say you raise any revenue kill jobs, really? s that's not what history shows. revue the last time we had a t comprehensive plan to cut spending and raise revenue to reduceg the debt during thest clinton administration, we kicked out o the longest period of uninterrupted economic growth in u.s. history. of ose 39 straight quarters of economic mini st growth. 32 of those quarters during the clinton administration and 24 million jobs were created. and

mr. president, dealing with the job deficit and debt in a balanced and comprehensive way doesn't kill jobs. it creates the climate for the creation of jobs. it improves the competitive position in the united states.hat it woul mr. president i have been part of three plants reduces debt to what would otherwise be byi $4 trillion for the fiscal commission planrved i served 11 oftcome. us, five democrats cannot tie republicans, one independent and with that outcome. i was part of the defici group thaton. i wa three republicans, three committ that democrats produced a plan to plan reduce deficits and debts from what they would otherwise be by otherwi 3.7 trillion. was part of the democrats on the senate budget committee that unveiled a plan to reduce deficits and debt from what they would otherwise be by of ef $4 trillion. so i've been happy to be part of bipartisan effort, part of efforts on our side of theiparti aisle.

interestingly enough, every single bipartisan commission has $4 come up with a package of aboutt savin $4 trillion in deficit savings. any group of sick did the worko of bringing deficits down from 9.3% of gdp to 1.9. yes we have revenue. entlement and yes we have spending cuts and yes we reform entitlement programs because all of that iss necessary. this legislation before it ise. says well wait a minute.to we don't want to do it all. we want to focus on just part i of too it. big this problem is to too big to try to solve it but just part of the federal fiscal picture. it's going to take all parts to solve this problem. came mr. president, a group of six i'm proud to say came up with a deb

plan that stabilizes the stack n and begins to bring it down in avoiding the skyrocketing debt a we are always going to it experience. mr. president, this amendment, this legislation before us would stop it in its tracks. i think that the profound mistake. i hope my colleagues reject this still considered plan. i think the chair and yield the floor. mr. >> the senator from florida toru. the recognize. objection, s >> thank you, mr. president. much. i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes. >> without objection so what are >> thank you so much. i was witness to an interesting and informative change and want to comment on that recently to york the leader and senator from newxt of york has some comments that are to the for important but was being have be get ago discussed here. to begin a lot of phone calls is a and letters from peoplell back eir

f home wondering what this is all reallynderstan about.d de these arebate h folks working everydays debt and raising families and runningdo many businesses and they want to to really understand what the debate is about. behi all o they could do just that there's a tab in the fight in congress the if it doesn't do anything we may peo not go topl pe ay bills began back ad. second. for what really is behind all of this? the best way to explain it as ace, there are critic to lives of real people. everyone of us has a credit they dos the rating. a in essence, two or threeetermines, companies basically receive as an individual may give you credit ratings see what you're tha goingt, to be back and ready at the money to pay people back. the senate is something called a credit score. people are familiar with that. every time yo au buy a house or on anything on credit, they will run your credit and we'll talks his then, this is john smith. this is so-and-so and this is will his credit rating.ot. he is to not come the people decide whether they lend you money or not.ry of countries have credit ratings, too. it's based on two things. number one is your history of paying pay people back into coming

the world ability to pay them back to the future. or three major companies that give credit ratings towhat tompa countries.ni say three majoring companies. worried but those companies are saying two right now is we're looking at america and we are worried about two li things.ot they are worried about this definite issue in the fact thatts on the debt limit is not resellried down process because we'll miss payments on this site is the a other. they are worried about that. but they're a lot more worried about something else. stas. and it's not her willingness to pay that. it is our ability to pay that people that lend money to the united top states. this is for newbies. they write government will avoid amica's avoid -- if the government avoids default, we'll likely cr affirm america's the highest ey will credit rating and if we avoid rati but the default, they will affirm our the n reading but on the negativecredibleudget agr outlook.

this is the money line substantial and credible budget agreements to cuts the debt said. but they're basically saying iswe'r if you raise the debt limit ande he may temporarily avoid being downgraded, but ultimately on a deficit. watchlist unalterably still going to downgrade you must have a substantial and credible budget agreement to cut the o deficit. now what does bathat mean? to they go on a library that the ultimately agreement should avoid deficit trajectory, basically cut the much money deficit that leads to aconomy stabilization and ultimately a see. decline in your dataseto particularly in how much money you owe compared to how big your economy s has.wing that is what they want us tohen how w see. what they want to see is a plan in place that shows how we stop growing the deficit in how we their start reducing it. that's what they are saying. then they talk about specific numbers and i said we think $1.5 trillion of cuts this year moody but the next 10 years is a plan to little. we did for trillion might be'sompany enough. the other rating company even if if

the party, republicans agreed to aid raise the debt limit and may th not be enough to avoid y downgrade. that's the second credit house. avoid even if you race at atlanta, we may still downgrade you. def in order to avoid downgrade you years. need a plan that reduces annual budget deficits by at least 4 trillion over the next 10 r years. we hear comp the 4 trillion number probl again. is the second companies in the debt limit is a problem but the d what we are really worried about is do you have a plan to death in the deficit as per the third major company wrote that we are looking for an agreement and so the credible fiscal consolidation strategy in order to secure american top credit rating ofse if our aaa. credit to the three major houses, what this is all about candidates as car ever credit rating goes down,portantly on interest payments left on everything from mortgage to car we but more importantly an americanllow

stack in which music to borrowgo down, more money to pay the interest on the debt we are the a of. all s so we can't allow credit ratings to go down and the three majorhere's whathey a companies that give us our e videos are all saying the same thing.. here's what they are saying your in debt. plain english. pass diamond is a problem but the least of your incr problems. or bigger problem is the debt. deal with t allhe you do is pass an increase to the debt limit doesn't come with the trouble. serious crediblethat t big substantial thing to do with theges debt, you're in big trouble. li so i would submit to the biggest's one ve issue is not the debt limit.raised. the debt limit is the easiest s we issue. that's when away from being too raised. our biggest issue is the debt and the fact is as we speak we shoul there's no plan in place to begin to do anything about it. our credit is in danger because of this amount so we should be substan focused on like a laser. to available a substantial plan the look like? let's take it from the weights of these credit companies. it has destabilized that since i4 trillion mht began to show deficits come down.h. do.

we know 1.5 chilliness not enough. we know for trillion might beence. enough. this is what we need to do. so how do you do th'sis?hat hav t o i do get their? it's not rocket science. it's a pretty simple mix of mone to things that have to happen. you have to stop spending three you k and you can't use any more money than you have. if you're in debt and you keeply goi firing, a lot of more money thanhing you h you take income is only can it to get worse.ey you got to control the amount of money you spend. and can you can do those things you control how much you spend and generate our money and you can th do those things at the sameuld time, that's how you dig yourself out of here is this. the debate we should be having here is how do you accomplish t that? t andhe so on the don't spend side, we really have two choices. has you can either trust future congresses will do what no congress in the history of this control nation is ever done and that is control themselves.oney.

and i say when republicans areoliticians s in charge, democrats, they've never been able to control his any money. if you let politicians spend money they don't have they will spend it. i don't care who's in charge. that is what history tteachesmehow in us. on tir congress won't do that or we can why - put into the limits on their ability to do that. use i that's why they are four things res were spending cap and a balancedtr it budget amendment.al if you don't have restrictions. i come from a state where there i is a balanceds budget amendment. i assure you if you don't have they willro w laws in place to keeptory will back politicians from spending money they are borrowing, they will borrow money and spending. history will back that up. crux of the second issue is how tobate generate more money for this control we're h today government and that's the crux of the debate were having today. some believe the way you do is raise taxes especially on richoesn't people. it nea doesn't require nearly enough money if you could even collect out

data. now send the only tax plan thate aisle it add i've seen put out there by thes' worth administration and colleagues on the other side of the aisle as that to 10 days less.the other we do w know however these can should kill jobs. together we could generate more revenue in the way i think we should g do it is to grow your more peo economy. you get more are people that to work in now more people pay taxes. you get people working to make permanent because businesses are that doing better. the government uses money not to grow government. it uses the money to pay down the debt and control itself. bututside how you create archives in to sta economic growth? ito by encouraging people not of bus this building but outside building to start businesses or for existing businesses. if you assess people come politicia, if noneconomists, not politicians. creat j what would it take for you toey a re create jobs again? then jus

a tax system that is fair andway and they regulations they can comply with the get out of their way. those are ideas. pla even as we stand here today, a give p few plants around the table toi do it. i've watched the president give press conferences, but i've yet to see a plan for the president. d with all due respect to myhe senat colleagues in the senate, i plan from haven't seen the plan from them chamb er either. they can control the chamber and the senate.ontrol the a p i had any plans for them. doesne a moment ago, it's hard to do you comomise compromise on the other side does have a plan. would you compromise on quakes where is your plan? pla you can't compromise of one iss person is offering plans. right there's one plan voted on by any house to do with this issue and it's the one they are on right li now. i would submit if you don't like cut, captain balanced and you don't think the need to cut spending to balance a budget

the show is your alternatives. caps spending and balances spending. fine. offer your version of cut, cap and balance. let's get on to the bill the house has passed and if you don't like it, change it. you've got the votes to do it. if you don't like this bill, bring your bill up and amend it. how could you compromise? how could you cold republicans in the house for refusing to compromise if you don't have a plan of your own? how can you compromise if you don't have any ideas of your own? it's not a fair thing to say. and so i would urge the leadership of this chamber and the president of the united states to offer their ideas on paper. put your ideas on paper and offer them so we can begin to work on this concept of compromise that you've offered. because you can't compromise and you can't negotiate with people that will not offer a plan. let's get -- why don't you vote to proceed to cut, cap and balance? proceed to this bill so we could have a debate on this bill and so you could offer yr ideas on this

to this bill so we did have a debate on the floor and you could offer your ideasheerfect on this le bill. it's the perfect opportunity to do it. let's stop negotiating in the heren thi media and press conferences and start doing it here on this do. floor, which is what people sent us here to do and i hope that is what will happen. i'll mr. president, i will yield the floor and note the absence of aspense quorum. one >> mr. president, one of the things that frustrates the american people about washington is how hard it is to get peopl reliable information ando straightforward answers. in the senate and congress wethe congre have that same difficulty. its h ar it is hard to know sometimes like numbers and steegmans and politician plans really mean and what they will cost. it c politicians operate the proposal and say it cuts taxes eventhough though taxes go up.es they even come up with new names

to discuss tax hikes. mainly because in deficit cuts. revenue enhancement, revenue enhancements or reduce spending, tax reduced spending in the tax code doesn't mean eliminating their earned income tax credit. aowed it means reductions somebody's allowed to take and that has renamed been renamed as spend. we have people come to the floor and blame our massive deficit on b how anything and o everything about our out-of-control spending and the war in iraq or a tax cut passed a decade ago ord special preferences for private yachts or jets we tell frattali abl t about it and i hope to be able to contribute in some way to clarifying the issues to do my

best today to plainly state somenk of the things i think are plainly true. the first, i would like to addressresident the myth that the president haseficit-ruction a 4 trillion-dollar deficit reduction plan as has been it talked about it. be it seems to be believed that the president has a plan to reduce by $ spending by $4 trillion. but the only plan that the president has put on paper that allowed anybody to see is howbles his february budget whichiona doubles thel national debt. never the president has never put a single spending cut plan ony paper that reduces spending and he has no program that wouldally the reduce substantially the csely deficit. guarded if he does is a closely guardedr this secret. his budget he submitted earlier this year increase his taxes significantly but it increased the

spending by the congressionalld budget office analysis. the- it would increase the deficit by more over the next ten years than if the budget were not passed him at all. indeed increase the gross debt of the united states bytrillion $14 trillion dillinger the entire debt of d the united states again in the next ten years.lan and if there is a secret plan that does exist somewhere itade should be made public thisternoon. afternoon let's see it. millions i'd like to. i think many americans would feel the same way.on't summary's just don't work. the president summarized his budget the idea subscriber to thin else calling on americans to live within our means and will not add more to the debt.y

now that sounds pretty good. because this year our deficit is be projected to be $1,500,000,000,000. so we would like to be living livg within our means again. we would like to not add more toe the debt, but even by their own analysis the plan didn't do itur and the congressional budget the office analyzed the president's budget and found that in tenlowest sine years the lowest single annual deficit that would occur would be $740 billion. the highest budget deficit president bush had lost 450. the lowest that would be accrued and i would be $740 billion. and it goes up in the out yearsoes until it goes over a trillion dollars, over a thousand billion dollars in the tenth year of the budget. how can that be live within your

means? will not add more to the debt and every single year we would be adding to the debt. so we can't deal with summaries and and spend statements about an plan until that plan has been put in language and scored. we also have received no plan from my senate democratic colleagues for our time there high a couple months ago the democrats were owned on the path a of producing a budget and theuire budget committee as required by statutory law.us to s the ranking republican was very anxious to see it and we were told we would get. the morning of the hearing not a i bit sooner, so i grumbled about that. i would like to have a little more time to see it.t

waiting on that to happen. it think it's a majority leader chair not the committee chairman decided the democratic leadership decided that they dec didn't waidnt to have a budget.ks one of their committee folks said they put a target on yourould be back. senator reid said it would beave foolish to have a budget. foo why? would be foolish toave have awell you budget? well, you can't say your budget you calls and you still live withinour your means if you actually put out there. people can score it and find outop o whether it is true orut not. budt so we i haven't had a budget in the senate and 813 days as ofthere i now there is only one diplomat only one p plan on paper to be only one a plan available for public scrutiny and review, and that is the one we are considering today. cap, an that's cap and balance. it cuts spending immediately. it caps it so it won't go up and it requires the balanced budget amendment to ensure that washington ends the deficit

spending once and for all. the american people do notn support a washington plan to pass a grand deal with tax hikes that never go away and with spending cuts that are talked about but never really tnk, to materialized to really think the gimmicks and accounting of washington they are not u happy with us at this moment the people's representatives in congress have presided over a financial condition of this% country where 40% of every dollar this government spends is are t par borrowedty. k well you know that he party theye not people are angry. p they are not good people, they are angry people. angry why shouldn't they be angry when this kind of leadership has occurred in the congress of the united states of america?

it is utterly, totally indefensible and should never, n ever have happened, yet it has.hreatens our it threatens our financialhreate ns future. it threatens our economy and economic growth. so the american people are not and happy about s it. so, that's why i introduced a is piece of legislation that would any require seven days to review any de bills that would increase the debt limit because this is going to be complex.p at people want to bring it up at the 11th hour under panic mode.if wdon't p we don't pass it tomorrow the markets are going to be desta destabilized.rest cou go interest could go up and i don'tf know, some of those things could we happen. we ought to do it before the last minute. we absolutely should dog something to avoid this deadline wait unl but we ought to not leave until the last minute and a half it

down i down in the united states senate comex bill some big complex bill that's gotto b to be passed before the sun rises the next day and nobody score has time to analyze it was koret to find out what it really meanscolleagues but the washington democratic colleagues are resisting the cut, cap and balance bill because there is no gimmick. no there's no accounting trick to to get around that this becomes lawng you don for the big spenders the only thing you don't want to pass is a piece of legislation that will work to contain spending.want tond because you see they want to and th spend more. and they think of the continue to spend more then they can go taxes t in and raise taxes to pay for it. washington is going to have to end the spending.

ere there are -- these kind of choic difficult choices are the familie responsible choices families,issions cities, states, county commissions are making every day and every year. ala and alec governor robertaw an bentley oversaw an rd across-the-board cut of 15% from the general fund in the current cur year because of a constitutional defit coalition on the deficitama's notoing spending. u alabama isn't going to run up the debt. and for next year he's taken a appach. cautious approach. hopefully we will have more revenue, but he has cautiously yea approached next year and propos proposed cuts of up to 45% for agenc ie some agencies that he felt would be appropriate places to reduce spending. those are tough choices.hat, but i like -- and like that, the

federal government is not required to live within our l means.ss is another myth i would like to address is the idea that the buet cri current budget crisis is a result of the two whirrs and a tax cut. we've heard that over and over again. the war has cost a good bit of money. over the entire decade the cost of the afghanistan and iraq war about is about $1.3 trillion. and that is a lot of money.rs again that's over ten years over a decade. this year alone the deficit is expected to be 1400,000,000000 this -- 1.4 trillion. be the deficits this year will be the larger than the cost of iraq and afghanistan over ten years.

so the driving force behind the deficit isn't above war in iraq and afghanistan.y it represents only 1% of the the total outlays over the last ten ye years.to thetal total amount of money spent the president -- president obama office took office is $8.5 trillion. three by the end of his first three years in office we will have t added 5 trillion to our gross federal debt. that is a stunning number.bushad bush had a widely criticized and in many ways brightly criticized for hundred 50 billion-dollar deficit. since president obama$4illion has beena has b in office it's been 1.2, 1.3its -- i looks like this year it will be $1.5 trillion. each year more than double that amount.

we are borrowing to class at half of what we're spending we're s pe every single day. the last two years as the yea discretionary spending on defense discretionary spending las in the last two years and increased 24%.rage. 12% a year on average.these these are the discretionarypendin spending this is and social security and medicare increased sec are less than that. iased maybe half of that. they do increase. the stimulus package alone addedinto into l the law in a single day ine p 2009 would pass on the floor over my objection. that stimulus package every penny of which was borrowed we were in debt. stim but they said the economy needs to be stimulated.850 we are going to spend 850 or so billion dollars. psed

that one stimulus package has in the largest expenditure bill inrican the history of the american public cost more than the entirehas war in iraq has cost.tookffice the spending when president bush tn $2 took office was less than$4 trillion. 2 trillion. today it is almost 4 trillion. $6 tril it will be almost 6 trillion by decad the end of the decade. there's only one honest answer to the question of why our debt fast, is rising so fast, and that is out of control domestichat's spending. cirlating another myth circulating which i would like to address concerns from our the outlying from our colleagues and friends who participated and worked hard on the gang of six proposal. i did a lot of credit and respect for the hard work they put i nto it. i wish it had been produced a i month agowi. so we could fight shortly have legislative language and nobody kno but me today.od the authors rauf the summary degette produced for less

claim the approach would reduce rede the deficit by $3.7 trillion ahird which may be o the third of the we're deficit we projected to see the next ten years. the bud my staff on the budget committee taken their pages, summary pages they produced for us can only find 1.2 trillion in reduced spending. outline and in that outlined along with $1 what pretty clear-cut your aease. $1 trillion tax increase. where does the other 1.5 trillion in deficit reductions claimed in the outlying come from. german conrad one of the members the b of the gang of six and on the budget committee a man i've enjoyed working with even says the outline has a $1.5 billion triion

to 6 trillion-dollar tax cut. but this is compared -- this isse how these numbers get bandied is about. it's compared against theh baseline, which assumes moreeases wou than 3.5 trillion in tax increases would occur. tease so he's only going to increase -- i the taxes i guess $2 trillion. you i don't know. and you get a savings by not having him go up as much. but based on the current taxstence rates that are in existence in rd thei america today we would really wo outline and would agree it tion ov increases taxes by a trillion a l dollars over ten years.t that's a large amount. the real cost of the tax changeome exchange as some would say who at the have looked at these numbers tr buds not 1 trillion but 2 trillion. there remains to be seen. but we $ will get hopefullye'll get legislative language that could actually be analyzed and we

actuly go would know u how much taxes would actually go out. the last missile i would like to address is perhaps the most i important of all, and this is a mess we only need about $2 trillion in actual spending cuts over the next ten years andour colleagu are s ay it's basically been with our colleagues have said. well, they floated the idea of $4 trillion in savings. what that means is you save 2 trillion by reducing spending and increased taxes $2 trillion deutsch saved $4 billion over n tenot years. i'm not sure that's what the w american people are expecting when we say we are saving money by taking it from them notrican saving the american people more not saving the private economyother more $ the ticket to anotherm trillion dollars from then.

there's no free lunch. somebody pays. n democratic colleagues have said all the new plan has ever beenbeen made p made public toub this effect they could get behind a budget deal that reduces the deficit $4 trillion over the next tenillion oe years. half of it comprised of spending cse cuts. frankly. well this is not even close. what is needed to ultimately balance our budget, we are to projected to spend $46 trillion over the next ten years. a 2 trillion-dollar reduction of spending is only about 4% reduction spending set to increase buy s almost 60%. s we are reducing spending, not

reducing spending, reducing the rate of growth in spending by $2 trillion on the $46 trillion plan. think about it. not talking about reducing spending, this budget would haveup expenditures and go upten significantly in the next ten46 years to $46 trillion.e $2 trillion would be a gross reducing reducing in growth in 2 trillion-dollar tax increases we' would mean we would spend therill same 46 trillion. we just would borrow 2 trillionbecause less. more because it would extract more from the american people.ust and just a little over two months, our debt will reach 100% 100 of our economy, 100% of gdp.

that's the growth of debt. that would match the size of milli neuroeconomy and cost us a more million jobs or more a year when that occurs. the reinhart study, secretaries vice mayor said it's ans excellent state and in some ways it understates the problem weunderstate the have secretary geithner knowsealroblem that the debt is the real eir problem for america. their study shows that when you're debt reaches as large as pling ours it stops pulling down the economic growth. the expected 3% growth the first quarter, came a at 1.8. could that be because we've cost the 90% threshold already in debt to gdp? becomes and then that becomes a burden on the american economy? and reduces growth?h is this quarter's growth has gone the e below the experts are pr downgrading of the projectedthe t growth of the of third andrters

fourth quarters of the fiscal year, this calendar year. a very serious thing. use and christina romer who used to be in president obama's white house on economic matters said 1% growth means you will add a million jobs. j so if we lose them and we come in at 2% growth instead of ao add -- three, we have failed to add a million jobs we could have added and the debt i truly believe isieve the reason that we are having surprisingly low growth rates. below projected rates. maybe i'm wrong but we certainly tha have a study that seems to say certaiy have that exactly and it's been has been widely praised by economists allntry over. the country. the honest truth is this president and his democratic to senate are not going to agree to the level of spending cuts in a

put our debt deal that's necessary to put the a country on a sound path. i think that is a fact. we've been negotiating and talking all year. th senate the house leader of a budget plan. the senate has refused 800 plus days without a budget. the dirt determined not to reduce spending. after increasing domestic domestic spending cuts in non-defense but 24% they say they will freezeat spending.ve freeze spending at levels that have jumped 24%? the we don't have the money we are baring 40 cents of every dollar we spend. we'vgot this is unfortunately we have ove got a battle over the vision for the future of america. as a big government addition and a lot of our members have and

they are going to work as hard to as they possibly can to preserve that fission preserve that afterunning spending. t and after running up thishis huge basel debt by 24% baseline increase pack that doesn't count the stimulus package of almost 900 billion still on top of that run out ofnt to go this debt and now they want to go to the american people and say we are not going to cut speing; you spending. you've got to pay more in taxes so i don't think that's the american people want swedes gotf a debate. it's the great debate of our in time. it's not going to be settled in two weeks of you people are not and going to meet in secret and work out some brand and glorious deal which they could, but i don'tink think they are. i would be pleased if they do. i'm confident the good sense and

good wisdom of the american people is going to prevail.ually get our i'm confident that we will eventually get our spending under control. we will restore the american principal of limited government a and build a better free future our c for our children raise the debtimit limit so we don't have that kindhis of problem and put this country on the south path. o if we get our debt under col, i t control i think that this and growth is gone, and i believe that we will see the progress that we have always seen in thisountry. great dynamic country. i thank the cherry and would yield the floor. the house passed a debt reduction bill. republicans call it cut, cap and balance. the bill, which passed in the house on tuesday but eventually capital spending and require congress to pass a balanced budget amendment before the debt limit can be increased.

we will hear from senator reid and a few minutes. we will also hear from republican senator tom colburn who is part of a bipartisan group of senators working on a debt reduction measure. but first, here's massachusetts senator john kerry on the floor and why he opposes the house republican bill. >> madame president obviously th well everybody in america is more than well aware that the date of august 2nd has passed coming at us. and also unfortunately well aware that the united states senate and the congress appear y to be stuck yet again that this moment in effect during the set we are debating a constitutional to amendment to balance the budget

instead of balancing the budget mes i've heard from of sidesteps around here but this is what they call the message amendment.pretty mix and it's sending a pretty mixed message to america. here but, what we ought to be doing pie here is not trying to pass ao piece of paper that tells us to do what we know we ought to do. we ought to be doing it. what we ought to be doing is stopping the country fromt defaulting on debt that has already been obligated. in what people are refusing to do in the house and on the other u side of the ogle is live up to our o obligations. this is not suggesting that we giving are giving permission to borrow more money to spend money on something irresponsible in the couny future. this is paying the debt of our spe

nt country. money already spent alreadyed obligated and here we have aalance act so-called cut cap balance at. that passed the house of representatives.thing morehan an ever the understands nothing more than an ideological messageto pass the exercise. devotee knows it's not going to pass the senate and we know even more it's not clear to be signed by the president of the united states. with we ought to be spending with a the s real solution on the flooren of the senate that addresses the needs and concerns of the american people we ought to be reaching that compromise. what this does unfortunately is in terms of send a message to the americanca people that this

place may not get it still and that a lot of folks here are more prepared to play politics than really engage in the business of the nation. lookeat if you look at the specifics of this constitutional amendment pas that is not goings to pass it'seach and eve divided into three parts, and each and every one of them are equally problematic. wou the cutting apart would require immediate cuts that would cut almost 1% of our gdp.te los which economists tell us would result in the immediate loss of several hundred thousand jobs. so they are coming to the floor with a program to actually cuthat 700000 jobs in a time that most americans believe job creation thinthat w e is the single most important thing we could do here in the country as well as avoidng on our defaulting on our debt. th the kept part walks into placeouse

the unrealistic spending levels the house passed in their t budget, while less the same timers preserving hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthiest americans and tax loopholes for the biggest corporations. you a the balanced part i almostn don't even have to comment on every that. scr i think every american scratchesatches their head and says what? th're go they are going to put in these away unrealistic caps that what mr. paul waide research ande abili development education funding the devotee of kids in college and the job base in the country. bu strip that a way that hey let's preserve the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the country who incidentally may be cuts investing the benefits of the tax cuts in china or india or other job creation in many other here. places other than here.

and the balanced part of thisassage amendment requires the passage amend of a balanced budget constitutional amendment that would require a supermajority to waste t raise revenue or close any wasteful tax loopholes.up in other words you don't have tocide have a super majority to decide where and what you wind up a spending, but you have to have a super majority in order to raise any revenue or closed in a egregious tax loophole. one that they have no economic comely purpose may be completely sweethet outdated, may be a sweetheart deal that got into the tax code over the course of the years but you still have to get a superbut majority to get rid of that. everybody here knows how hard it is to g is to get 60 votes. a lot of the business in the t united states senate has been caught up by the filibuster.

every single small piece ofhe legislation that comes to the floor of the senate everything requires the motion to proceed which requires 60 votes which is time effectively a filibuster each time and we have a record number t of filibusters in the united states senate compared to any other time in the entire history of the united states of america. requiring a two-thirds super majority, to third supermajority would lockean, locked in a bad policy for the future, and thee constitutional amendment iseasures proposed would make all revenue raising measures secured unconstitutional unless they secured a super majority of the house and the senate. i would repeat we do not need a piece of paper new one, we do

not need an amendment to the constitution, a group of words to tell us to do our duty. every single member of the senate raised their hands and took an oath of office right over here beside the presiding officer and said they promised to uphold the constitution of al the united states. all we need is the courage and the conviction to make thee compromises and do the business of the united states senate and it's not going to get any easier that than just because you pass some words that tell you to do it. is we did this in the 1990's. what we are talking about is not pie in the sky, it is not some fury. we balance the budget. in the 1990's. consonal and we did it without a it constitutional amendment. people we did it and we have people of

good common sense that comees together and we voted to and compromises, and we not only balance the budget, we created a america $5.6 trillion surplus for america, and at the same time we for created 23 million new jobs for americans.wh andile we guess what? budge while we balance the budget in a sensible s way without artificial caps and artificial draconian instructions but with common s sense willen we didn't, every single quintile of americanar ne turners, income earners rose in their income.es every single american quintiles of their incomes go up.n america got rich than at any w time americans history come even as we balance the budget after a balanced budget amendment. tell ya so, i will tell you if we goends

down the road that our friends p on the other side of the aisle are proposing he would see major reductions in medicare major reductions much worse than the paray and budget has proposed. social security beneficiaries would receive a $3,000 reduction and average recipient benefitsthin ten within ten years and be forced to seek deeper cuts on the road. i think it is safe to sayput withoutan exaggeration of what put an end to social security and medicare as we know them today. this week robert solo and alan blinder each nobel laureates in economics and other renownedcono economists said an open lettera and t to president obama and the converse in strong opposition to a constitutional balanced budget amendment. and these economists stated that

a balanced budget requirement of very the constitution would be a vision and unsound policy the would adversely affect the adding economy. deily setting arbitrary caps on the federal federal expenditures would think the balanced budget amendment even more problematic. and the balanced budget would mean perverse actions in the face of recession. weake when the economy is the weakest the amendment would actually aggravate recessions. he in the years i've been already privileged to serve here we've already debated this several times and voted on at. the as i said in the past, the most against compelling argument against this doesn't come from me or anybody on the floor. the it actually comes from the real experts to meet the people who framed the constitution of the

united states. if they were here on the senatehe floor today they would against this amendment.ecause because it violates thes basic constitution's basic tenet which is majority rule. and the notion that the mostt fundamental document of law can be set aside for a time is ludicrous and it's an atom at the very reason for having the hing government document at all. now, madam president i have more to say on this but i notice thi the majority leader is now on the floor with other colleagues, h and i suspect he has something to share with us, so i would yield the floor to the majority leader. >> i would ask that my friends recognize the statement not appear interrupted and that when i finish my statement that he beut je ctio recognized to finish his to thet everyone estimate without objection, so this pce of ordered. >> i want anyone to know who has a piece of legislation on th is floor fl today that this is the time to come and debate to their late hearts' content. if they want to debate late late

tonight, we are here to do it ey c late tonight. i'm if they want to delete two marlo three period what time, they can do that. but i'm going to -- i think this piece of legislation is about as we can and senseless as anythingd that has coi ame under the senate floor and i am not going tofter day waste the senate's time day pie after day on this piece of i legislation, which i think is anour couny is anathema to what our country is all about. so, everyone understands we are going to have a vote tomorrow. i'm not going to wait until saturday. we are going to have a vote tomorrow, and i feel confident tha that this legislation would be oth er disposed of one way or therstand other. the american people should understand that this is a bad piece of legislation. perhaps some of the worst legislation in the history of c this country.officer:he >> madame president. >> senator from massachusetts. >> i gather my comments will be

fr interrupted but after the sai majority leader set by a don't think i need to go into myech, to speech to be truthful with you. con i would ask unanimous consentec or that the full text dbe placed in f the record as if read in full. >> without objection, so i -- ordered.ove quickly >> i hope that we will move quickly to the real business which is avoiding default coming up with let me just say e madam president i think there in, is one effort we ought to beseriousort engaged in, and that is the serious effort of passing for the mcconnell read, read mcconnell whenever you want to call it their initiative is not to c taking anything on the road.ot their initiative requires just li like the base closing commissionor for the united states senate tol in deal with a big deal in a very short period of time. colleagues want to speed thatt period of time but i wouldn't object. i would think that makes sense.ew but we need to recognize that in the next not few days we do not have

the time to put the kind of will common sense to the task thatt f will allow us to get the budget u figures that will allow us to know without certainty that what we are doing with medicare or all social security or medicaid ormportant all these other important initiatives are being done in possie. the most di llinger to fend fossil way possible. aut. that's what this institution is to be about and what separates world the united states's senate. bod this is often called the mostarti cu delivered a body that it hasn'tct in been delivered on this subject in the past months. with we have an opportunity with theative to read mcconnell initiative to belace able to put in place a process that will guarantee that we have vot up or down votes.evant on these critical issues after all the relevant committees had the opportunity to weigh in using perhaps the commission budge the budgett commission's the

report together with the gang of six was particularly a p inappropriate name but with what the his proposed, which i think is a very constructive andery important contribution to thecontribuo the debate and helps us have a startin starting point for this discussion as congress in the next short periodfa of time can actually fashioned the kind ofd does credit budget decision that benefitsa america and does credit to this institution as a truly deliver this body. and that is what i hope we will doth my and i look forward to working country. with my colleagues in an effortng me t to make tohat happen and i suggest the absence of a quorum.tor from >> mr. president? mrburn: >> the senator from oklahoma.anted t >> i wanted to spend some time talking about what is comingember of t before saturday morning.he as a member of the gang of six i want us to solve our problem.

but the best way to solve thatn problem would be a bill that isaturday going to be voted on saturday morning. why is that? and we are borrowing $4 billion a day. and i have got enough to agree all here to know that regardless of regar dl all of the intentions and all the s tatements of the members on the floor we will never liveon until are within our means in washington to until we are forced l to live within our means.take just because a constitutional pass amendment would take probablyen wha for years to pass given what the american people think about regardss of w ha coming to go on and not do it do regardless of what we do about our short-term problem coming up thateople august 2nd. so the very fact that people would say we are not going toce

pass the cut, cap and balance because it won't happen in that period of time is exactly the u same approach that got 14.3 trillion on debt that hashat our credit rating at risk and of puts us in the kind problems wee oered have today. is offered a plan i think isi know not even better. i know that not many of myll but he's colleagues will but his plan toext ten cut $9 trillion over the next years, but it's the only plan that specifically states when he would cut where you would cut and why he would cut. facts it's backed up with the fact is. nobody else can claim that. you don't have to like all of is them. what we do know is if somethingody doesn't come out of this body between now and august 2nd the cuts for at least $4 trillion this country is going to sees a significantly incre ased interest rates as a cost.onderfulords a

what often happens is you hearfloor wonderful words and wonderfuly speeches on the senate floor but. nobody putting their name on where you would cut. $9 well i put my name on $9 trillion worth of cuts. countr ify pinches sifry but the in this it country.. everybody to read it pinches what? everybody. but youwe'r know what? we are all in this. his we have lived the last 30 years o of this country on the backs of the those who are going to pay the taxes for the next 30 years. it's time we start paying back. it's time we start giving back.differ place you know the senate is a different place today than when i came to the senate. when i came to the senate, the gislatio idea was not to block then. legislation put to discuss legislation, to have the courage and the backbone to against something and go home and tell your constituents why you voted

against it. would ive to offer amendments you thought am would improve legislation andot defend those amendments ande for voteas i for a bill you felt was in the ofhe country best interest of the country to be able to defend that. last what's happened the last threeenate and a half years in the senate is we just don't vote. because the politicians of the senate don't want to go home and explain the positions. no so if you are not voting you are not accountable and are not responsible. that type of behavior is exactlyavior we n the opposite behavior we need to have today. so, come saturday morning whenainst peding t members of the senate to vote against proceeding to cut the cut, cap and balance, they will display either courage or cowardice, and by not talking about simple words.. there is only one plan that has passed the house ofhe debt l im representatives that raises the

debt limit and addresses what is said to be needed by the ratingp a agencies, andnd that is cut, cap and balance.d not and it ought to allow a vote to -- not to allow proceeding toh it o that debate whether you agree with it or not we have aow i amendments to change, but to not allow it to proceed so the american people can see theiritions elected senators and real positions and what they know has to be done what really happens around here is we say things so we can protect our politicalat that doe s careers.e're and you know what that does? we are not only bankrupting the financial, we are bankrupting a thend country's history and

heritage.ed the heritage of this country was sacrificed m and that means even r sacrifice of a political career to do the right thing right now for the country. somethin g i believe if he were to pass something like this we would lst lower our debt by at least $2 trillion over the next year's economy would absolutely un de boom we would put underlining enfoing dep the reliance and enforcing the dependency. we would hold accountable pentagon that's wasteful, we would eliminate duplications of hundreds of programs that is the redncy same thing with the early years of redundancy and administrative. bureaucracy. if we are to do that this proposal will never come for a nor vote in the senate, nor any of sen the aspects of it because the those

hard senators don't want to make those hard choices.nd balances that is the debate about the cut, cap and balance is allack t about.embrace e h forcing senators to go back toake the increase the heritage of this country and make the hard choices because if you don'tu don't f pass a balanced budget amendment and to enforce the discipline thi the political expediency of this country will continue to learn. reign and the problem will not bed also s solved. i will also see raising the debt limit limit doesn't have anything to do with our do with our problems. that's just a symptom of the means problem. differe somehow thinking the u.s. governments government is different in all the state governments, all theth city and county governments every family in this country,ry other every business in this country and every other organization in the country that has to live within its means. i refuse to believe the americannate

a people will not hold members of not the senate accountable for not giving them a chance to put those fixed parameters on noss and their government for the do tha future. we have all sorts of reason s whyt we can't do that why we won'tt do that or the same time any at just s all. what we will see is a good against proceeding to the newre procedure with no comment whatsoever. mylan is, my plan is if that happens is to every c be all over this country to make sure every citizen of every no statet of every senator who does not allow that to proceed for them to be aware of that. i want to personally make them everyth awarein of that.o. and in everything that i can do. because what you are really doing is denying the liberty and the freedom of this country to hold you accountable to do the right thing. so we are going to see. minut i wanted to spend a few minutes saying that the only thing that

is possible right now to solve us -- the problems in front of us, theven tho ug only thing even though i have endorsed a 9 trillion-dollar $3.7 plan and a $3.7 trillion plant,6 trillion the only thing is a the 6 trillion-dollar plan because it's passed the house of representatives. they voted to increase the debtur limit and they've put significant cuts into the budgetcant for next year. they've put significant caps and we'v as we go forward and said we a have to vote and pass theudget balanced budget amendment. right now that's the only thing j that will get us out of the chance and that's really not hard to do. first point, we're going to cut y 111 billion by at least nexthat p year no masatter whether that passes on out. we are going to cap spending in the years that go forward with the bill passes or not.gain but the difference is as soon as

we get our balance at the end the politicians who don't want to make hard choices will bend back to not making hard choices and we will get in trouble again. and that is why it is absolutelycitizens he critical that this country's citizens have the ability to the hold us accountable within the living wit parameters of living within our means.why we can't inhofe we will hear reasons wehe can't do it and it might hurt to the poor.ny nobody here wants to in any way help intend anything other than support for those who can't help themselves. we that's their excuse. we can't do that. let me tell you what's going topen in happen in our country. is the very programs that helps tt the poor the very programs that di help the poor are goingmi to be diminished in the future through fiscal necessity when we are mandated to make the cuts to the able to borrow more money.

so, it is a false statement because by not voting for areally sayg i balanced budget amendment, whatng b you are really saying is i want to claim one thing that i know something else is going toi happen. i paraphrase a statement of martin luther king that i think t describes this place if more than anything else i've ever known. and it was this.uestion they ask the question of something popular. a cowardice asks the question is eedient expedient?is character asks the question is it true and right? and we have tons of cowardice we let ourselves on courage and d character. as you listen to the debates listen over the next two days on this motion to proceed on the only

th thing that will solve the problem in front of us today, i want you to listen for political liste expediency. i want you to listen for vanity, and then i1 used to search hardto see to find character because you are goingce to see an absence ofhose it on those that pose this. beauvis know this will solve the problem. pass they know this is one of the few things that can the pass the house of representatives. to and yet we are not going to haveor it come to the floor for anent proce amendment pssrocess for a full vote, debate and for a vote. we are not going to have it for the vote. eediently because we are expediently have cowards. we we do not want to truly addressaf the problem because it mightical affect our political career.

that is a sad commentary on the sad heritage of this country.heritagef a sad commentary. but it's a commentary to bemmentarybe expected otherwise we would havewould he never gotten into the position that we are in today. some let me talk about some details of where you can do. we are going to hear all sorts of reasons why you can't dots o things and reasons you couldn't y come up with 9 trillion.on, but but when the american people ww really know what's going on. if they go and read about the background and all the waste all the duplications, all of the stupidity that goes on in the aountab government, all the lack of accountability, the lack ofsponsibity in responsibility and bureaucratic agencies all of this silly deci decisions that get made to spend dolla t billions of dollars that don't really help anybody the tax code, tax year marks and tax

credits and tax expenditures are time nothing that most of time corporate welfare or socialism. the greatest tax and a world comes when we allow the federal reserve to print money which theough values your assets through inflation and the earnings on the those assets. so the greatest tax in the world for is coming for america.o is that we are going to devalue the value of the dollar and wh inflation is going tato go up and what you can earn on your asset is going to be limited by thefferentials that whi interest rates and the tually differential is that which you actually lose in the real value of what you owe every day. the other thing i would pointer thi out isng through the tax year tax marks and tax credits in the tax that d code anybody that doesn't get one of those is actually paying them. for it. don so, if you don't have an end up

lo here if you don't have a some lobbyist, if you don't have some and you special-interest looking out for you and you don't get one of those, you are paying for it thugh your from your increased taxes on your part. inherently unfair. but let's just look at the duplication for a minute. loo it's interesting to look as we have gone through the governmentashion programs and a detailed fashion with the ga to based on their dif report. wepr have 100 different programs o with 100 sets of bureaucracies s per surface transportation. why do we have that? because the congress has mismanaged.because

that's why. because of expediency. vity, because of the vanity. because wanting to get reelected we created another program and another program. looks good and sounds good butearch to nobody ever does the research to see where they overlap or require years to say is the nobody really program effective and nobody really looks at the constitution artic to say does it sit with titution article 1 section eight? the enumerated powers that we t are supposed to live within asim we blow by all the time doing judiciary things. in this committee today if they pass the bill for state prisons wh we p called the second chance act me i finally when we have said the first time i let it go because it was a supposed to be a demonstration and a limited program. it is now -- it's going to get more free authorized for five more years. it's legitimately it has a zero t federal for the federal government. and we are going to spendlion $600 million on it. if we don't have it is well

intended, but it's not our role thounds o it's the states and we have hundreds of thousands of thingsthat just like that where we have we ignored what the constitution says so we can look goodically. politically. we've teacher quality programs giving it teacher quality differe p programs.rogr 82 different programs by theams bye quality federal government improves the quality of teachers.as you know, thomas jefferson was really the fault of education in to our country. the she worked for years to establish the university of virginia. he was committed to the fact will that a great education will e g proreduce great benefits not only for th for the individual with the f education but for their family and the country as a whole. sai here's what he said.me i from the federal government tonv become involved in education would require a change to the to be o ne u.s. constitution. so he had to be one of the i people who wrote it. w and yet what have we done since

the beginning of the department of education? spent we have spent $2.6 trillion on the education in this country at the federal level and everyring parameter measuring and estragonur the progression of our kids in o school is worse for the same after that to $.6 trillion. not i can't tell you. it's it's not working. and the reason this is not working is because you can be a home teacher at home and the federaland if t government will say you don't you w know what to edo but we can hire but we you to do the work in washington and all of a sudden you know all what the need to do. do. so, we have a massive that has ruined our education because we we spend all our money filling outents and forms and requirements and meeting the mandates of thend we have tak federal education and we takeenr into power a way to control of teach the education from the parents who c and teachers, the people who care most about the kids in education. .. education. $2.6 trillion, with nothing to sh