economy like this. as the speaker said, there is no way that the house of representatives will support a tax increase. >> good morning. a lot of history is being made, unfortunately, the unacceptable history for this country.today e the senate has even pass the budget. if you look at the numbers today, unacceptable. as a small-business owner, starting when it was 20 years old, i wonder if i what made that same decision today if i was 20 years old. this is the time to change. the policies of this administration have to change. the policies of this democratic- controlled senate -- you have nine bills that passed the house.

estimated more than millions of jobs. you talk about 15,000 in the last month. america deserves better and we deserve a change to go forward. this is not time to talk about raising taxes. it is time to talk about reforming taxes, lowering, creating an incentive for people want to invest in this country again. not only do we have the jobs number, you have the last 12 months the lowest number of start-ups in a decade. i hoped the president reads these numbers, looks is what he said in 2009, looking to the future of the next three years of where jobs would be. his policies have failed. it is time for a change. the rhetoric of where he is going on the debt limit these to change as well. -- needs to change as well. >> another month and another disappointing jobs report.

29 straight months of eight% plus unemployment when the president told us if we pass his stimulus plan, we would never have of unemployment above 8%. the president only tells us he inherited a bad situation. i can see the point, but he has made it worse. after 2.5 years it is time for him to take responsibility and answer the question "where are the jobs?" the president's stimulus program, tax increases, and class warfare rhetoric, if it created jobs in america, we would both of which we would be a highly -- the most highly employed society in civilization. clearly we are not. the house is passed jobs bill after jobs bill after jaws bill that would create the confidence necessary for job creators to create jobs. and yet they languish in the united states senate, a body

very good at meeting, not so good at acting. house republicans plan for americans jobs creator, all about and in the era of trillion dollar deficits and making the tax code fairer, flat, and simple. killing off job killing regulations and ensuring that we can have american energy made in america for americans. >> this administration has this economy in an ideological headlock. and the economy is begging for mercy. 9.2% unemployment based on 29 months of consecutive failure is completely unacceptable. what has happened to turn this around is the white house reflecting on its failure, has to acknowledge its failure, and ultimately say, there has to be a better way forward. the better path forward is to

nine bills that has have -- seriously take up a budget. the better way forward is due in the nonsense conversations about raising taxes on american job creators. >> the jobs numbers that were given this morning on to wait the lack of focus by this administration on truly giving america what it needs. when i go on the weekend and i talked to those job creators, but they are reeling and suffering from is this lack of focus. if you look at several of these bills of fare, they are energy bills. in the state of south dakota, energy is extremely important pushed these bills recognizing that job creators need to have affordable energy, they have to be able to utilize low-cost and put people back to work, and indeed the certainty that these bills would deliver and provide jobs to americans as we do it. they have gone to the senate and have done nothing.

this administration, this president is still defending the failed stimulus package while it talks about raising taxes. talk to anyone who has common sense. talk to anyone who is run of business before, and they recognize that you cannot raise taxes in a time of uncertainty because it takes more money out of your pocket that you need to go out there-and reinvesting your business and put people back to work. our job creators need to note that they have a certainty going forward that we're not going to raise their taxes, we're going to give them freedom some rigid from some of the burdensome regulations that this administration has given them, and we would give them the ability and tools to go forward and put people back to work. >> house continues to build on this record of job creation while the senate continues to do nothing. we passed the jobs and energy permitting act to help unless american energy creation. the purpose of bill come energy security and job creation.

54,000 jobs could be created by h.r. 21. 54,000 jobs. as much as 1 million barrels of all that they could be accessed as a result of the passage of the bill, enough to replace our imports from saudi arabia. 54,000 jobs, and yet the senate does nothing. i held up for 36 town hall meetings since being elected. people talk to every single one of them about the harm that high gas prices are doing to their price -- their families, what it is due to their businesses, and how this stagnation is continuing to prevent them from hiring new people and creating expansion opportunities for their businesses. it is time that this country start drilling for american energy and stop drilling the american economy. >> one of those bills on job creation of the regulatory side is h.r. 872. it fixes a bad court decision

businesses and municipalities would be crippled with unnecessary red tape and higher costs that provide no additional help or environmental benefits. it equals less jobs. the epa would be overwhelmed with redundant duplicative permit applications from hundreds of thousands of farmers, public health officials, and even everyday citizens. with the unemployment rate in 9.2% and still going up, we cannot afford to have an already slow permitting process that stifles economic growth and job creation even slower. we were sent here to do the people's work. we need to restore confidence in the private sector to create those jobs and make those investments. as a freshman congressman, it has been extremely frustrating to me that we of a plan for jobs and we pass jobs-creating bills, passed a budget, and we have more in the pipeline to send over to the senate in the senate has failed to act.

the senate needs to do its work and restore that confidence and make the private sector investments and get the economy going and get people back to work. thank you. >> how did this jobs report change the equation in getting a debt deal done or jarred does it add to the urgency or does it make it more difficult? >> the situation we face is pretty urgent. i would describe it as dire. and we have three really big problems. a spending problem, a debt problem, and the jobs problem. that is why we believe it is important to fundamentally fix our spending problem and our debt problem and to help get our economy moving again. >> when you talk about what will happen on sunday, if you anticipate saying we have a framework for something that you could present your conference at the democrats can present to their conference?

>> there is no agreement in private or in public, and as the president said yesterday, that we are this far apart. it is not like there is some imminent deal about that happened. there are serious disagreements about how to do with this very serious problem. >> there been talk of a deal package of $4 trillion, $2.5 trillion. what should be the goal with the august 2 deadline? >> i have wanted all for this process to do what i have described as the big deal. it would fundamentally solve our spending problem and debt problem in the near to medium term. but at the end of the day, we have to have a build up again pass through the house and the senate.

this is every bit skewed that we have not quite dead yet. thatis is a rubik's cube we have not quite solve the head. the-solved yet. -- solved yet. i have made it clear that they should move on unsound. we expect it is in the house to move forward, separate bills, and i would hope that they would heed our advice. >> would you combine them after a fast track in the senate? >> no decisions. >> if there is no deal, how about moving forward with the plan being your own plan? >> very wise of you, alan. [laughter] it is an option.

we appreciate your advice. would like to come up here? >> you have to take some big whacks at social security. what would you offer them they would allow them to vote for something that would be very difficult for them? >> any ideas, you can pass them on. we have a serious challenge facing the country. in addition to the three challenges i outlined, we are up against the debt limit. while some think that we could go past august the second, i frankly think it puts us in an awful lot of jeopardy and put our economy in jeopardy, risking even more jobs. i believe it is important we come to an agreement, but it has

to be agreement there really does fundamentally change our spending and our debt situation. >> given how far apart you describe yourself, what you hope will come out of sunday? >> i do not know. a lot of conversations are continuing. in all honesty, i do not think things have narrowed. i do not think that this problem has narrowed at all in the last several days. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> after a meeting with president obama, nancy pelosi spoke with reporters at her weekly briefing. this is 20 minutes.

>> welcome to our regularly scheduled thursday morning press conference availability. day 185 of the republican majority in the congress and we still have not seen one jobs bill come to the floor. this is obviously reflected in the jobs numbers this morning. we have put probably 20 job initiatives on the floor and the republicans have rejected every one of them. 10 votes on job creation measures, and they voted no each time, some of them on more than one occasion. and that is unfortunate bird i am so pleased that the president talked about infrastructure, something that starting with a recovery package 2.5 years ago, that democrats have been pushing. more needs to be done. the president reference some

bipartisan legislation to that end. i hope that our republican colleagues will consider that. people are crying out, literally crying out there for jobs. i also want to point to some of the measures that are real or imagined that may come from this -- are we calling it a grand bargain? the debt talks. we cannot do harm with that. whatever cuts we need to make, we have to do so in a way that does not harm our economic growth. you see with the austerity measures that have already gone, the public employees being laid off, they will only get worse if we continue down a path that is not sensitive to the cost shifting to the states in order

to reduce the federal budget. whether it is authorizing job creation through infrastructure and the infrastructure bank, whether it is how we budget, we all agree it is essential to bring revenue to the treasury. where do we stand on all of this? we had a meeting at the white house yesterday, bipartisan, bicameral, and we talked about some level of optimism that emerged from that meeting. it could enable us to schedule -- it enabled the president to schedule a meeting on sunday to see where we are on something that would have the elements of of but, in their words, "grand bargain." i wish we could look at a grand vision, but how we go board to not harm the economy, to reduce

the deficit, to create jobs. to educate our children and had a decent retirement for our citizens. this morning, i had the privilege of meeting with the president and vice-president on the subject so that we had a clear understanding, as the president has met with all the leaders, a clear understanding of what our terms and how we go forward, and some of this will come forward on sunday evening, but the question i have related to the baseline, the length of time, the fire wall, some of the technicalities of the discussion, so we're not changing rules in the middle of the discussion. and so with that, i just came in my apologies for even running later than late. the usual lively discussion in our caucus where our members

were very definite. their enthusiasm was such that many of them stayed around after votes to participate in this caucus, almost unheard of. they did on a friday afternoon. they are as firm as ever on what i have been saying that which is, we want to of course reduce the deficit as we grow the economy. we're not going to reduce the deficit or subsidize tax cuts to the ridge on the backs of america's seniors. and working families. no benefit cuts in medicare and social security. and we have serious concerns also about what is happening with medicaid as well. though i think that talking it through and people understanding more about what the possibilities are has been

constructive, i am still optimistic that we can find a place where we can come together. i do not like to have a situation where we're saying damage in need are both so you better have this in the bill. no, this is a big deal. this is not a six-month deal. is a 10-year bill. we want to work together to have something that has bipartisanship, that has balance, that has consensus, broader than the democratic vote, to put something over the top that most people do not want to vote for. it has to be reflective of our values. 10 years in a budget makes an imprint on the future. decisions that will be made in the next few days up until august 2nd will determine what the future will look like, depending on decisions that we make. about taking it to a higher plane, again, the dignity of the

retirement of our seniors, the opportunities is for jobs for our working families, the education of our children as we reduce the deficit. >> you say a lively discussion in the caucus. what you hear when you talk about the entitlement programs and making alterations that may be part of a grand bargain and our members getting that all or are they drawn a line in the sand? >> cutting benefits is exactly that, cutting benefits. there are many initiatives where some have tried to that fact in the health care bill, the affordable health care bill, whether dual eligibles, not to get too technical, but giving the secretary the ability to negotiate for lower prices on

pharmaceuticals as a cost savings. if that were to be part of a global plan, we won assurances that that money would be poured back into medicare, not to subsidize a tax cut for the wealthiest people in america and the say reducing deficit. it is that kind of thing. i think members can make distinctions, obviously. but by and large, we do not want anybody to think that because we think the pharmaceutical companies got off easily and the health care bill that that means that it opens the door of weakening medicare. no, it would strengthen medicare. >> the following that, how much resistance from your progressives did you get in the caucus just for uttering the words cut the medicare?

>> i never uttered those words. [laughter] no cuts to merited your you forgot the -- no cuts to medicare. you forgot the no. when i spoke to some of yesterday, i said that when i went to the table yesterday morning at the white house, i come here in a very special way because i looked back at the caucus where hundred members are either women or minorities, and over half are women. that is more than 50% of our caucus. they know firsthand the impact of changes in any of these initiatives to communities, to individuals, to people who depend on social security and medicare and medicaid.

women overwhelmingly depend on social security because they live longer. women are also caregiver's within the run families and health providers across the board. they know the impact of this and our members are men, women, minority are not, close to their constituents. with other retailers of this operation, right there on the front line. so when someone talks about knowing the ramifications of it, they can see it from the direct impact on people and we want to make sure that people are making policy decisions and understand how that translates. very informed, intellectually and by personal experience, caucus. the high tension wires go when you talk about making changes unless you can justify what the purpose of it is. for a sample, if you talk about the pharmaceutical thing, the

purpose is to strengthen medicare. let's make sure that that money goes to medicare, not to deficit reduction. strengthening medicare and social security has a positive impact on the fiscal soundness of our country. but it is not in the accounting of this pharmaceutical money, so we'll use that offset tax cuts at the high yen and say that we are reducing the deficit i have time for only two more. i have to make every minute count between now and 6:00 p.m. on sunday. >> republicans were talking about the nine bills that they pass the house and sent to the senate. you talked about the 10 bills that democrats brought forth that they had no action on the floor. you saw the president and the rose garden calling for action on infrastructure, tax reform, trade agreements, all of these different things.

people want to know, this idea that you can create jobs immediately asap, is a gone because of the broken process on the hill? why hasn't the congress sent these bills to the president? >> you will have to ask the majority party about that. they control the floor in the legislation. i would say that there are bills that we could pass immediately that would give confidence. i have spoken to many captains of industry -- does that term still apply? the ceo's, ok. they have told me they will create jobs when they have customers. if people are buying their products, they will create jobs. when you fire a policeman and a firefighter and a teacher and a public employee because of austerity programs, you're not only hurting the safety of the

neighborhood, and the education of your children, you're reducing the number of consumers for you are reducing the number of consumers. we have to understand again the impact of all of these actions. that is why all of this lash and burned, take no prisoners, cut, cut, cut, it does just the opposite. it lowers money coming into the treasury. i would reject the patent bill because i do not think it is good for entrepreneurship. that is another press conference. i think it is the wrong bill. you notice that for six months how many bill signings have you witnessed at the white house? think of that. think about the salvatore bill

signings the two attended at the white house. it is something quite different. not that this is not useful, but i have some internal work to do. >> [unintelligible] >> i've talked to everybody else. >> moving to a chained cpi measured, what did represent a benefits cut? it did you hear anything at the white house yesterday from republicans about flexibility on the ideas of revenues? >> the speaker said -- you have told me, the speaker said there was a 50/50 chance that something could happen. i only heard that from here, not from him. but enough was set at the white house to set up another meeting on sunday, period. that is all i can say.

i cannot speak for the republicans obviously. oh, cd-i. -- cpi. they spent all lot of time talking about the 14th amendment. while we talking about something that is not going to happen? i have no idea if this is one happened. if it does, if there were something that would be put on the table, it would have to be something that would be put on the table to address us as security, say, where the money went to social security. cpi money would go to the general fund. its purpose is to strengthen social security, it would need to go to the general fund. if that is been the reason, it to go to that. the gang of six, i have no idea what is public about the gang of

six. it is now. [laughter] i have been told, and that is true, it is the fact that i've been four -- told that in the gang of six plans, they can cittern cpi chains, savings and protection for the poor. those kind of things come up funds going directly to the social security trust fund, not sitting in the general fund, things like that. we're discussing things that may or may not happen. let's see what happens on sunday and deal with what emerges there. there is concern and our caucus about what would happen with the cpi. some feel that it is a benefit cut and others do not.

this falls into the category of hypothetical at the present time. one reason i cannot say anymore is that i do not know any more. the dirty, rotten devil is in the dirty, rotten details. when we see it, then we can speak better to it. thank you all very much. >> the debate of the federal budget and debt limit reached the house floor were minority whip steny lawyer argued with majority leader eric cantor. this is a half-hour. i want to pursue what i presume is the reason for not having the recess that was -- the district work period that was originally scheduled of. my presumption is that we are concerned about the impending

arrival of the august 2 date on which the -- on which america would be put in position of defaulting on its obligations. i presume that's the reason that we want to make sure that we are here to work on that issue. am i correct on that? mr. cantor: the gentleman is correct. it is my hope we can have some deliberative processes and open discussions so that we can arrive at an appropriate conclusion of the challenges surrounding the issue of the debt limit expiration. that is correct. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that observation. i know the gentleman has said in the past that he believes it would be a very bad situation for our economy and for our country if we did not extend the debt limit. am i correct that the gentleman

still shares that view? mr. cantor: the gentleman -- i'll say to the gentleman, mr. speaker, that i have said before that america pays its bills. just like the american people are expected to pay the bills, to pay their bills at home and in their small and large businesses. but the fact is, i think that the american people are expecting us to live up to the promise that we are not going to let spending get out of control again. and so the purpose of the deliberations that are ongoing throughout this capitol, at the white house, etc., are focused and should be on making sure we change the system, making sure we accomplish the necessary cuts which would exceed the amount that would raise the debt limit as well as to signal to the american people that we have changed the system. that this -- that this kind of unbridled spending ceases an we begin to live within our means, get the fiscal house in order,

so that we can focus on the overriding need for this country right now which is to create an environment where jobs return. another gentleman -- i know the gentleman has seen today's jobs report. disappointing is an understatement. i make the point again, as the gentleman knows, mr. speaker, he and i were at a meeting at the white house yesterday with the president in which i said again the import of our need to act an act responsibly and not, not to raise taxes on the american people and the small businesses that we need so desperately to begin to create jobs again. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i'm pleased, as the gentleman knows, to hear that you want to stop the spiraling deficits that confront our country. i will repeat again, because the gentleman keeps mentioning this and i have enough experience to know what's happened and in the

30 years i've been here, of course we've had some few years of the obama administration but we had mr. reagan's administration, mr. bush first administration, mr. bush second administration and we ran up over -- i want the gentleman, i know he knows this, over $6 trillion of deficit during that period of time. however, in the eight years that mr. clinton was president of the united states we had a 62 -- $62.9 billion surplus. now the gentleman makes the point that spending is out of control. the fact is, as the gentleman clearly knows, that when you were in charge of the house and the presidency and the senate you increased spending by more than was increased during the clinton administration by a percentage on an annual basis. so that i'm glad to hear that your side now, without fail, talks about spending being out

of control. as a matter of fact, i have a feeling if your side was spending five cents would you think that we would need to cut an additional five cents in revenues so that we could not pay the bills. because that's why we ran up $6 trillion in deficits. you did not pay for what you bought. i'm with those who strongly believe we ought to pay for what we buy. but i also believe that we ought not to put this country on the brink of financial chaos and bring us down in the eyes of the world because we don't extend our debt. now very frankly i think we'll pay for what we buy. we call that taxes. whether it's defending america, paying our f.b.i., paying people who are researching cancer, heart, lung, diabetes issues, those are federal expenditures for which the american people pay through taxes. and very frankly if we're going

to be responsible we make a very simple judgment. if we want to buy it, we ought to pay for it. that $6 trillion of deficit that was incurred during the presidencies and the president is the only person in america can stop spending. only one. you can't do, it i can't do it. we need 217 other votes in our house, over there they need at least 60 votes to do anything. the president can do it himself. ronald reagan never had a veto overridden of a bill that said we spent too much money, george bush i never had a veto over overriden in which he see ared to a -- overriden in which he see are toad a bill saying we spent too much money and george bush ii never once had a veto overrid son that we spent money that he did not sanction. so i say to my friend, we did meet at the white house and the president of the united states, the leader of our party and i

and mr. reid and mr. durbin all said yes, we need to get a handle on this spending. yes, we need to get a handle on the deficit. and, yes, we need to bring down the debt. and we need to come to the table together with everything on the table. and we need to pay for what we think we ought to buy and frankly we ought to ensure that the united states of america for the first time in history doesn't pay its bills. and i tell my friend that we've had a lot of commentary over the last few days, people on wall street, people in business, large, medium and small and i will tell you if the united states doesn't by august 2 agree to pay that which it owes, that which it has incurred, not what we're going to incur in the

past, those debts we've incurred in the past, everybody in america is going to be hurt. everybody -- every economist that i've talked to says that interest rates are going to spike, stock markets are going to be at risk and millions people who have pension funds and who have interest in their pensions are going to be adversely affected. the housing market which is struggling is going to be hurt. the economy that is struggle something going to be hurt. so i would hope that my friend and i will go to the white house on sunday where we'll sit with the president of the united states and we will be for a large deal that is referred to as a comprehensive solution so that we can in fact not in the short-term, not temporarily, but

a long-term bring fiscal discipline to the operations of our country. our country needs that, i think the international community expects that of us and if we don't do that, i tell my friend, i think we will not have fulfilled our oath of office. to protect and defend the constitution of the united states and serve the general welfare of our country and our people. now, some in your party of course have suggested there's no need to raise the debt. does the gentleman agree with that proposition? i'm not going to go through the quotes but as know one of your candidates for president has indicated there's no need to worry about raising the debt. she serves in this body, as a matter of fact. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i'll respond to the gentleman as he knows, he and i have had plenty of discussions about this, so assume we're just on for show here that he wants me to say

yes, i believe it would be a grave consequence if we did not reach the point at which we could arrive at a solution and put a bill forward that would permit an increase in the credit limit of this country with an associated cut in spending and move to get our fiscal house in order. and as the gentleman correctly pointed out, the reason why now we will not be in our districts the week of the 18th is to ensure that we do get it right and that we recognize that the markets, the investors around the world are smarter than expecting us to just go and check the box to meet the date. at the end of the day what the markets and investors and more importantly the american people are looking for is that we act responsibly, that we begin to manage down the debt and deficit

. that means trillions of dollars of cuts necessary because i think most americans are looking at washington in disbelief, that somehow we think there's not enough money coming into the federal government. i mean, just look at the jobs report today. i cannot fathom how anybody, how anyone thinks right now is a good time to raise taxes. who thinks that raising taxes on individuals and small businesses can help create jobs? we are in a crisis. people in this country need to get back to work. let me just, mr. speaker, for the point of explanation, because the gentleman insists on going back decades to recount the past, and as the gentleman knows, i'm the first one to say that we came to this majority with some con trigs, that, no, -- con trigs, that, no, we

weren't always acting in the fiscal health of this country and that's why we have taken the job at hand and act responsibly and passed a budget that actually put a plan in place to manage down the debt and deficit, unlike the other body, unlike this president. and that's why we come to the table right now, as we approach this debt ceiling vote with a well thought out, deliberative plan to get people back to work while we get the fiscal house in order. but let's just review some of the statistics, mr. speaker. there have been 2 1/2 million jobs lost since this president took office. mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield on that? mr. cantor: no, i will not. 13.9 million americans unemployed right now. gallon of gas is significantly higher, well into the $3.50, $3.60 a gallon in places in this country. up from $1.85 when this president took office.

$14.3 trillion in current national debt. up from $10.6 trillion when this president took office. if you worked -- if you work that out, $$46,000 -- $46,042 debt per person up from $43,371 when this president took office. so you can go through line by line of how things have gotten worse for the american people. now, we can sit here and blame and point fings all day long. but i would suggest, mr. speaker, the american people are tired of the bickering, they want to see some solutions, they want to see us come together. that's exactly why we have altered the schedule, so we can begin to actually deliver on the promise. so i agree with the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, we've got a serious challenge ahead of us. we on this side of the aisle have been consistent in our efforts to meet that challenge in a responsible way, but i

would underscore again, now is not the time to raise taxes, now is not the time to say that washington needs more money because that money comes off the hard work and backs of the american people. and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding back. very interesting comments he makes, of course he leaves out some things. he talks about the jobs that were lost. those jobs were lost of course as this administration took office. this administration has gained back two million of the eight million jobs that were lost during the economic program that my friend from virginia voted for the most part. eight million jobs were lost and the month that this administration took office in january, 780,000 jobs in one

month were lost the last month of the bush administration. that's not very distant past but let me tell you, i heard the same rhetoric, you said it changed, i heard the same rhetoric in 1993, the same rhetoric when we adopted a program that we said would balance the budget, bring the economy back and create jobs. the same rhetoric, oh, no you won't do it. the program that you're going to adopt, none of which -- none of you voted for, you weren't here, i understand that, but the same rhetoric applied, you thought we were going to tank the economy, kill jobs, explode the deficit and have high unemployment. in fact, as my friend well knows, he didn't read those statistics because he thinks they're ancient history because you opposed that policy. but that policy created 22

million jobs. that's a 30 million-job difference between the bush administration that was the follow-on administration and the clinton administration. 30 million-job difference, i tell my friend, under the policies that you adopted and you supported in the 2000's. so i would hope that my friend's comments are correct, that you have decided to change. in point of fact we need change. and in point of fact the american public, which is divided itself, but would like us to come together, i am hopeful that we do that and my friend and i have had the opportunity to talk about this. we do have significant differences but none of us can put something on the table and say, if you don't agree i'm going to take the -- i'm going to tank the economy, i'm going to have america default for the first time in its 200-plus years of history.

if you don't agree and do it my way. i have said, the leader has said on this side, everything's on the table. we understand that you got to pay for what you buy and we also understand we got to buy less. and we're prepared to do both and in fact we have agreed to do both in the biden talks. now, my friend knows, he talks about economists. the most successful investor in america, i think most people would agree, is warren buffet. warren buffet said we raise the debt ceiling seven times during the bush administration and now in this congress, under the republicans, they're using it as a hostage and you rp really don't have any business -- and you really don't have any business playing russian roulette to get your way in some manner. we should, he said, be more grown up on. that to that extent he echoed the comments of our speaker who

is trying, in my opinion, to get to a place where we can come together, compromise as is critical under democracy, pay our bills and reduce our obligations and reduce spending buffett went on to say, we should be more grown up on that. if we don't meet the august 2 deadline, he observed, you're playing with fire when you don't need to play with fire and we don't need to tell the rest of the world that any time people in congress start throwing a tantrum that we're not going to pay our bills. that is not responsible behavior. it's not adult behavior. it's not good for anybody in the united states of america. and it's not good for the international community. in fact, senator simpson, who was referring to tom coburn, has said, look, you've got to have everything on the table,

including, yes, revenues, yes, taxes. some bard has said that taxes are the price we pay for democracy. they should not be any higher than they need to be but we ought to pay for what we -- for what we buy. if people don't want to pay for it, we ought not to buy it. unfortunately, the reason we racked up $6 trillion in deficits in the reagan and both bush administrations is because we bought things and didn't pay for them. as you heard me say at the white house, we, beth parties, voted for some things and didn't pay for them. we've got to stop that. that's why we put in place statutory pay-go. you say, well, we've changed. you passed a budget that doesn't balance the budget for the next 27 years. you passed a budget you voted for that. i didn't vote for that budget. doesn't balance the budget for

27 years. almost three decades. very frankly, i don't think that does it. that's why we went down to the white house yesterday and almost everybody in the room said, we immediate to do a comprehensive, disciplined, courageous, honest, principled resolution of doing what you say you want to do, that your party wants to do, and what i'm telling you, my friend, we want to do, because there is no option. we must bring this deficit down. we must -- the debt we have confronting us is not sustainable. i would urge my friend, and i want to congratulate speaker boehner who at the white house said, look, we need to do this, we need to have a comprehensive

agreement. that's what democracy demands. i'm not going to agree with some of the things in that bill. you're not going to agree with some of the things in that bill. if in fact we pass the bill. but if we come together, if we act as adults, if we do what every responsible financial economist and advisor has told us we must do then america will be pleased with us. i tell my friend from virginia if we don't do that, if we continue to buy things we don't pay for and we continue to ask the people to get it for free, then frankly, your children and my grandchildren and children and great grandchildren will not be happy with us. so i urge my friend, he and i will be going to the white house on sunday. i urge him to come to the table, as i will come to the

table, i tell him, with the understanding that compromise is essential. that the pry crisis that confronts us is real. and that america expects us to act in their best interests and have the colonel, not the politics, not the ego, not the view of the next election, but the view of the long-term as we come together and try to confront this issue for which all of us are responsible, no one party, no one member, all of us. are responsible. but then again if that is the case, we are all responsible for its resolution. and i yield back -- i yield to the gentleman. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i would just try and keep my remarks short and that is to say, you know, listen, it's about jobs right now. an the gentleman correctly points out, we have a real spending problem here.

and the question is, how do we address the first priority to get americans back to work, and address that spending problem we got? now if the gentleman says we have to pay for what we buy, i certainly agree with that. we ought to just be buying less. as a government. because the money doesn't belong to the government, it belongs to the people and if we want more people to get back to work, we should allow them to keep more of their money so that they can create jobs. and that's really where the fundamental disagreement has been over the last couple of weeks. it certainly was what put the biden talks into abeyance because there's a lot of good work that was done by both sides of the aisle in that talk. and i still believe that the product of those talks will prove to be the basis upon which we can arrive at an

appropriate resolution of the challenge before us around the debt ceiling. but why these talks ended was that your side insisted that we raise taxes. and i would say to the gentleman, raising taxes is, as he would put it, paying for what we buy. i'm saying, let's stop buying so much. and let the people decide what it is they want to do with their money. mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time -- mr. cantor: if i could finish, i'll yield back. mr. hoyer: i'll continue to yield. mr. cantor: i know the gentleman likes to focus on the hstry before, but every time the gentleman says, job lost here, jobs lost there, to posit again, there have been 1.7 million jobs lost since the stimulus bill we feel didn't

need to do the stimulus bill because now we are stuck with over $800 billion in additional debt with now unemployment today at 9.2%. so again, question whether we're on the right policies here and we're spending the dollars we need to be spending. maybe we shouldn't spend it. maybe we should let it be invested in the private sector. i would end by saying again, the deficit is a real problem. we got a $1.6 trillion deficit this queer, largest in the history, and third consecutive year of trillion-dollars of deficit. i say to the gentleman, mr. speaker, we can't tolerate that. the president shouldn't tolerate that. the american people have no patience anymore. that's why we need to get to work trying -- try to lower the hyperbole and get the job done. i yield back.

mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. the gentleman, i understand, does not like me to look back. but the problem with being around for some time, you hear people say things that this isn't going to work or that is going to work and you know what? hopefully that ought to be instructive as to whether it did work or didn't work. the problem i have, which apparently, i know you don't appreciate, is that i've heard the rhetoric before that you just used today and i heard it in 1993 on a program which had revenues in it, or as you like to say, taxes, obviously those are revenues. and it was going to destroy the economy. who said so? phil gramm, economist on your side. said we would deficit -- devastate the economy. he was dead, flat, wrong. 180 degrees wrong. we had the best economy in your lifetime. now furthermore, and let me

instruct the gentleman, i don't know what you're reading from but your figures are wrong. over the last 20 months, we have gained two million jobs, two million jobs. now, did we lose a lot of jobs in the first six months? we did. now, there is no doubt in my mind for one second that if it had been a republican president and democratic administration, there is no president who wouldn't have blamed that on their predecessor because they couldn't turn it around. so when the stimulus took effect, we gained two million jobs. have we duaned enough? no. we lost eight million jobs under the bush administration. we've only filled 25% of the hole. i don't know what paper you're looking at, but check your figures. this past month was disappointing.

but some people are doing pretty well in america. stock market closed at about 12.7 plus yesterday. one thing i think people are worried about is making sure we act as adults, act responsibly, pay our bills and ensure that america does not default. all i'm going to say, and then i'll close, is that i hope the gentleman and i join together on sunday and every day thereafter between now and when we can resolve this issue is so that we can pay our bills, stabilize our economy, and give what the gentleman talked a lot about in our colloquies when our positions were reversed, i remember those days, talked a lot about, and that was competence. that was stability. the failure for us to act. as we acted seven times in the bush administration to raise the debt limit and i don't have

the specific number but more than that in the reagan administration. and by the way, in the last fouriers of the clinton administration, does the gentleman remember how many times we raised the debt limit? zero. zero. why? because for every up with of those four years we had a surplus. not a deficit. a surplus. mr. greenspan was worried at the end of the clinton administration we were going to pay off the debt too quickly. and president bush projected a $5.6 trillion surplus. so i tell my friend that the reason i look back is to not repeat the mistakes of the past. we didn't pay our bills. we paid our bills in the 1990's, we started not paying our bills again, you jettisonned the statutory pay-go, jettisonned it again, essentially, not the statutory

part but the rule part. i would hope, again, i don't enjoy going back and forth on this but i am concerned for my country. the speaker said he wanted to solve this problem by june 30. it's now jewel 7. -- july . we haven't resolved it. the country is waiting for us. let us hope that all of us will not say, can't do this, can't do that, can't do the other. let's go down to the white house on sunday, with the president, with the senate, with the leaders of this house, and say, yes we can. we can be [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> congressional leaders will meet with the president on sunday. august 2 as the deadline for a deal that would prevent a default on debt -- federal desperate coming up next, "washington journal"law