proposal? >> there are lots of corporate loopholes in the tax code. there is no reason -- >> is that a corporate loophole? >> i think that fact that corporate jets get seven years depreciation and private jets get five years depreciation, that is a loophole. >> is that the law or a little? >>you can have a loophole in the law and that is why we have to change it by changing the law. >> that is the law. >> no question that the subsidies for the oil and we ask you to join us in closing some of these subsidies for the purpose of reducing the deficit. >> i will just tell you, i think that what we're playing here is a game where the president can speak for the president and he

does, mr. boehner has to speak for a body that he controls literally not one vote, and i know that is a strange thing for people perhaps in every party to understand, but i would never vote for a tax increase. i think a huge number of my colleagues have been honest about saying that for a long time. it is interesting that the president is going to test it, knowing the resolve on this side. it is a nonstarter. >> i think you asked a very telling question of mr. van hollen about what he calls a loophole is actually the law. it is a tax law. do you know where that tax law was written in its most recent iteration?

>> no, ma'am. >> it was actually in the stimulus bill which the president pushed and which every republican voted against. so i find it very interesting that the president has to pick something to demagogue which was actually in a bill which he pushed and these democrats all voted for. but i thought since you're pointing out so eloquently that it was a law, that we might ought to explain where the law came from. >> reclaiming my time. the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i appreciate the gentleman saying he would never vote for a tax increase. the debate is whether it is a bad law, a loophole for

corporate jet, whether that constitutes a tax increase. but as the gentleman knows, we have consistently raised the issue here that we are at war. and we're not paying for it. for me there is something wrong with the fact we ask our men and women to go and fight and die for what we voted for. i think we should end these wars, and how you deal with things like that if you do not say at some point that we're all going to have to pay for it? do you cut medicare and social security and pay for it? that is a big part of our debt problem right now. >> reclaiming my time, i will answer the gentleman's question. i have two sons, the 22-year-old is in the top 10 academically of the students in this country and wants to be a doctor.

virtually every doctor that he knows is begging him not to become a doctor. so the outlook from a 22-year- old who has studied hard his whole life but may want to be a doctor, every doctor in this country, how did they get it right that the health care bill passed is anti-competitive and a government takeover that will cost 800,000 jobs? how can i justify that? well, it is the law. on the other side, i've got a down syndrome son who is in the bottom 2% academically. he will need substantial help. alex is going to be competing against all of us in health care, against people who have every ability to take care of themselves, who should not look for government alliance or government programs, and he is going to be in what phil gramm called that wagon, a little red wagon of people who cannot take care of themselves by

disability, perhaps physical or intellectual disabilities, he is going to be in there with senior citizens, should be, people who cannot take care of themselves because they are poor. instead, everybody is going to be loaded in there. the gentleman asked about how i can think about the war. there are many things that may not be fair, but there is the law. and we all try to work together and we should try to work together. there are a lot of things i do not like, either. one thing i do not like is people who demagogue or say things that are not true. we are not jerry rigging, chris, the constitution. this is a constitutional process. i have read the words. >> mr. sessions, would you like

for me to tell you where they are? section two. my colleague reference people like harry reid and steny hoyer supporting a balanced budget amendment. this is not in the traditional balanced budget amendments that we have seen and debated in the past. what you have here is in section 2, page 5 and my copy, it says, outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed 18% of economic output of the united states. when you write that cap into the constitution of the united states, you will require deep cuts to those programs. as i indicated earlier -- the last time the united states government hit that target was in approximately 1966. we now have the retirement of the baby boomers. the other provision that jerry rigs the process is section 5. it says a bill to increase

revenues shall not become law unless two-thirds of the whole number of each house shall provide by roll call vote. you cannot eliminate a tax subsidy to the oil and gas industry for the purpose of reducing that deficit under that provision of the constitution. you can call that what you want, but you are writing into the -- oh, really? what do you call that? >> i call that a standard constitutional decision to make sure that what happens is that we're going to agree to raise taxes on people, hurts jobs and kills the economy, that we should make it tough to do. >> what i said it said it is in favor of the approach taken by the republican budget. the approach is to cut medicare which we could do by a majority vote and protect these corporate tax loopholes. this now says you have to have

two thirds to get rid of one of them. [inaudible] >> we were talking about these corporate tax loopholes, mr. chair. again, you're talking about picking winners and losers through the tax code. when you have a subsidy that will make any economic difference whether it is on the expenditure or receipt side, i do not see that it does. if you want to subsidize something, there is a government priority do it. you do it through a tax subsidy or an expenditure subsidy. they are economically the same. why can we not discuss bringing them both back under the same

breath? they are the same sort of thing. we're talking about stopping the government from picking winners and losers in the private sector. the government should not be saying if you do this one thing, you get the special tax treatment. [inaudible] >> the house that pass out a budget, that is what we called for in the budget. i will work in a bipartisan way to get rid of some of these loopholes if we brought down the rates. that should be neutral in terms of raising taxes. we do not want to see a net tax increase. and the gentleman was referring to specific points in a piece of legislation that is not in

this bill. this bill contemplates a balanced budget amendment moving forward. that has various different options in it. perhaps one of the ones that made move toward is the one offered by mr. goodlatte, but it could be that one or a similar amendment as long as it met the basic parameters. to highlight the specifics of 18% in a balanced budget amendment that has moved through the judiciary committee, it is not necessarily the bill that would be required to move through the house and the senate. >> you do require that two- thirds supermajority. >> not in that bill. >> it would have to contain a provision that says you need a two-thirds vote to do anything to raise taxes. >> to raise taxes, yes, but not a spending cap at 18%. it does say that in the goodlatte bill. >> medicare and others should be exempted.

i do not doubt what you are reading here. >> would you specifically identify the house resolution? the required 2/3 on the peace? >> are you saying you are absolutely opposed to anything that would stop the congress from raising taxes? >> i believe this is a democratic institutions and people should have a majority vote subject to the checks and balances of congressional and executive relations. i do not think you should put artificial constraints on majority votes and pick the circumstances to apply that to. >> we are destroying this country from this institution and body of taxes and big government. >> we looked it up and we can all research this. by our count, there will be about 10 states that right into

their constitution a provision that says you need 2/3 or more votes. >> did you start with the 111th congress? >> in fact i did. >> was a house controlled by the republicans are the democrats? was the senate controlled by the republicans or the democrats? and was the white house controlled by the democrats or republicans? >> one-party control. >> so the folks who are protecting the loopholes that are actually lost did not address any of the loopholes last year, when it was the democrats.

but during that time they had the majority 100%. the past the health-care bill that created a $2.6 billion entitlement we cannot afford. did it not take away $500 billion from medicare? >> that was a plan which was brought before the rules committee and is a law -- the president is on record of saying there should be substantially more. you and i have been up here perhaps a long time. mr. chambers is a relatively new member. he is part of a new breed of people. we are worried about this country and we no longer can continue to do what does not work. what does not work is taxing

and spending big government. i think the american people will see this loud and clear and it will continue to be important to the people of this country. >> i am worried about the future course of this moment. >> i know you and i have had plenty of opportunities to work together to find common ground. we have never allowed it to become personal in any way. i appreciate that very much. i yield my time. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. care. when i listen to you, i believe there is the possibility there will be an agreement, because there are only two ways to go about this, and you said no revenues.

you did not say revenues. you said no taxes can be considered. that sounds to me like an unwillingness to compromise. >> what it should sound like -- i appreciate the gentleman. i think he is engaged with me. there is a lot of money that is to be gained from the sale of property that the united states government has to go and spur our economy through the use of natural resources. there are a lot of ways to do it other than just taxing someone else. i assure you if you go after the oil industry, the energy industry, what they will do is they will raise the prices for consumers and will continue to have food prices slide the way they are. >> let me reclaim my time. i have been playing left guard a long time. i do not recall them ever going down. the same goes for insurance. i do not have a single year went insurance rates went down.

i need to make a couple of things clear here. first of all, i invite my colleagues, all of the stuff, and anybody in the audience, media or otherwise, to tell me by a show of hands if you think that the measure my colleagues are so exercised about at this point is going to become the law. raise your hand. do you think it is clear to become the law? you have to be crazy. you know good and well those things are not good to go anywhere in the united states senate. tell me this, jason. if it became law, how does it do anything about the short-term deficit crisis this nation is

facing this minute? >> it reduces the overall spending by $111 million. it also sends to the states a balanced budget -- >> when would that happen? you have to have a 2/3 majority here. you need 290 of us. you need the senate consent. then you have many states that would have to endorse it. they meet at different times of the year. the measure you are talking about, if it became law, and let me disabuse you of that -- it is not going to become law. i will make you a bet right now of cash money that it is not point to become law. that said, how is it that this will address the short-term problem that we have? even if we pass the balanced budget amendment, that is not

going to expand the debt ceiling and the deficit today. >> it raises the debt ceiling. it is something i and i know a number of democrats do not want to do. we are sharing sacrifice by raising the death -- the debt ceiling, something i desperately do not want to do. at the same time, it makes a cut that makes the deficit over $300 billion better than it was. >> it would require going through the house of representatives. you need 290 votes. then you send it over there to that room in the other body. >> i will agree with you on that one. >> so this money you are going to cut is not quit to become the law. you have, as do all of my colleagues, the prerogative, as i have seen here. we had the prerogative to put forward our ideology.

but do not have the american public thinking that what you are doing here is legislating something that is going to fix a problem for august to that will help us to raise the debt ceiling. what i have renamed year provision is, rather than cut, cap, and balance, crap, zap, and bounce. >> the only thing that is good to bounce is government checks if we keep doing what we are doing. >> i have the time and would be happy to yield to you

appropriately. have you, as i believe all of us have, had a diminution of schoolteachers and firefighters and police officers in your community, a reduction in the numbers, people laid off, for all intents and purposes, or not hired in the coming year? >> as has happened in most every state, we have had to do with severe budget cuts. part of the reason we are in this problem is we are spending more than $600 million a day in interest on our debt. imagine if we did not have that debt. imagine what america would be like if we did not have to spend $600 million a day in interest payments. >> how about $10 billion a month in afghanistan. how about iraq. >> i actually believed it is time to bring our troops home from afghanistan. i actually do want to bring the

troops home. >> then tell me under your proposal, if it were to be law -- what would we do about emergency spending? what would we do when we have reached, in that decade, the number of percentages you have laid out, all the way down up to 2021? if floods come and earthquakes come, and hurricanes and fires and other natural disasters, carnatic activity, and the ever looming possibility of something like 9/11? >> disasters happen. you have to be prepared for them. the balanced budget amendment would allow for tax increases if there was a 2/3 supermajority. you would see this country

rally behind a need to support and take care of those things if such a disaster happened. >> for your information, there are two counties i represent that still have not received the funding that was promised under emergencies. there are people who just lost their homes in the last four months in this nation, either as a result of floods or tornadoes, and we still have not recompensed them. this is after one of the most awesome tragedies, followed by the oil spill. bp says the gulf is back. i have news for you. i was up there the other day. the gulf aid hardly back. a lot of fishermen could tell you.

all of those people have not been paid. i can't even give you a flood in north carolina seven years ago that the money has never been paid. certainly, if we are not paying it now -- people expect when a disaster is to occur that we are going to be able to do something about it. we do not even have the resources to meet that. and here you have a concoction not taking into consideration 77 million american people are baby boomers. and those baby boomers are going to hit, starting last year and carrying on through. and that is going to cause medical expenses to go up. i might add i like the baby boomers. they are not going to go quietly into the night.

here is what is needed. what is really needed, and you'll keep talking about a plan -- the hastings plan says there ought to be thoughtful deficit reduction and there ought to be enhanced revenues and taxes, if you wish to call it that. there should be tax reform that would cover all of the measures we are talking about. and we do need to address entitlements. and we as congress people need to do it and not pass it off to some commission. we need to stand up and tell the american people what is needed in this country in order for us to go forward. we have not done it in the past. and we have to get ready to do

it in the future. i saw my good friend, and he is my good friend, the speaker of the house of representatives in a proposal a few weeks ago say that president obama would get his debt ceiling and we would get our tax cuts. i have news for you and everybody else. debtis not obama's ceiling. it is america's issue that has been brought to the fore. we have raised the debt ceiling 73 times since 1940. that would be during the war, several other wars along the way, processions along the way as well. we raised the debt ceiling. it was very revered by republicans and democrats. ronald reagan raised the debt

ceiling we raised the debt ceiling eight times since we have been here in the united states congress, and not once were we discussing a balanced budget amendment. are we discussing in 1995? some of us opposed it, but it did not have these restrictions that mr. van colorado has talked about. they are outrageous and absurd. >> i appreciate the gentleman from florida. the gentleman from georgia. >> i appreciate being able to follow that. i could not be more enthusiastic about this bill. i do not want to blow sunshine, but you spearheaded this from the beginning. you put the ideas out there. you pushed ideas a lot of folks have not thought about, had not talked about. folks have not figured out a way to bring the law into one piece. i dare say sometimes it takes a

crisis to bring out the best in this congress. i think you brought out the best in this congress in bringing this resolution. i am grateful to you for it. i want to talk to you a little bit about what the strategy is, going forward. i was tempted to take mr. hastings's bet that this might not pass the senate, and just because they have not passed anything so far this year. it does not lead me to believe they still might not pass something, going forward. it took the house passage of h.r. 1, i would argue, to finally bring the senate to a place where we could fund continuing appropriations for 2011. you and i sit on the budget committee. did the senate passed a budget before the house passed its budget? >> i do not believe so. i believe the president's budget, which went to the senate, was defeated. >> it was not even taken until after the house had passed its own budget. if i look at history, i see

nothing happening in the senate. i see the house having a robust budget debate, debating the ban holland proposal, debating the progressive caucus proposal, the house budget committee proposal, and finally bringing one to passage. then after some contemplation, perhaps some pressure from the american people, the senate decided it might bring up a couple of budgets and then went on to defeat the house budget. i do not know where else we go. what choice do we have, given your experience on the budget committee? we could sit and do nothing at all. we could do, as has happened 73 times in the past, simply raise the debt ceiling. how many of those debts and increases raise the debt ceiling by $2 trillion? how many of those that ceilings were raised at a time when our credit rating agencies say here are your choices. do nothing and we are going to downgrade you.

raise the debt ceiling, and we are going to downgrade you if you do not get the spending under control. you do that. i have to ask, because there is always so much partisan -- that is not fair. i should not say that. we often avoid partisan rhetoric. this proposal does not seem to be a time when we have done that. have you found a single republican enthusiastic about

spending 22.5% of gdp in 2012? not one. i do not know of any. i suspect we are talking to different subsets. not one. yet here you are bringing this proposal to the floor tomorrow. why is that? not one republican believes spending 22.5% of gdp next year is a good idea, and yet you bring up this proposal. why? >> i believe there is a lot of shared sacrifice. the responsibility we have on our shoulders during the long course of time is to solve the underlying problem. it is not to happen overnight. it is not point to happen tomorrow. at the root of what we are trying to ask for is to send to the states a balanced budget amendment. it is a very high threshold. we have to get 3/4 to pass the vote. i do not know why there is some of its desperation about the idea that we would send it to the states a balanced bullet -- a balanced budget measure.

all we are trying to do is get the states involved and serve the long-term problem so we can write this ship and get some fiscal sanity back in this country. the reality is that $14.50 trillion the president has asked to increase is another $2.40 trillion. it will be the largest debt ceiling increase in the history of the nation. unfortunately, that will only take us for the next 16 months or so before we have to revisit this again. >> i appreciate that. it took a little convincing. i am a co-sponsor of this legislation. but it took a little convincing on your part to get me there. i do not want to spend 22.5% of gdp next year.

but there are things that are going to have to happen if we are going to come together to guide this country through this section. i am so grateful to you for your leadership. had you not done it, i am not sure it would have happened. i would be happy to yield to my friend. >> i think we are all for sanity. we want to get the budget under control. the devil is in the details. some of us are concerned that this approach is coined to adversely impact our senior citizens and the most vulnerable. we were debating flood insurance and a gentleman expressed excitement over the fact that all of the amendments were made. i said i was ok with it. all of the amendments were in order. you were not here when i raised this issue before. but one of the big concerns we have with this -- this is a big issue we are trying to do with. this is a bill that has no

markup, no witnesses. probablyng told the would not be an open rule. it would be a closed rule. there are a lot of us who are very concerned about this particular proposal with regard to social security and medicare. it would be helpful if this were to be open rule and i would appreciate it the general would support it. >> a share the gentleman concerned. we went through a complete order process for h.r. 1, one of the proudest moments i have had in my short time here. it went to the senate to die. we had that same robust discussion on the budget proposals here, voted on and the budget proposal and a member of the house wanted to bring to the floor, found the one that got the most votes, send it to the senate, and it died. if i believe my friends at the treasury -- i went down to a debt auction. and the treasury department was

asked what are you doing. what are your contingency plans as you run up to august 2. they said they planned on congress solving this before then. but what are your plans. surely, any business operator coming up to the hard stuff like that has a plan. we are not good to tell you what our plans are because we expect congress to do something before then. that is not my words. that is their words. this is my friends at treasury. they would not give me any information beyond that. they tell me these are desperate times that require extraordinary measures. i would tell you any proposal that raises the debt ceiling by two trillion dollars is extraordinary. when it comes to shared sacrifice, and i think that is an important question. i ask mr. van holland -- we talk about the need for shared

sacrifice today. but if we continue to run on that, if we raise the debt ceiling, who is it that is going to pay that money back? >> that is a very good point. all of us are going to pay that money back, and our children and grandchildren will have to pay that interest back. it is a very serious problem. there is agreement that we need to get the deficit under control. the bond rating agency said we have to get the deficit down. we agree. we have a very different view on how to do that. we can really get a lot of that. we think, for example, that saying no -- that setting this provision in the constitution but requires a majority vote to cut medicare for folks who have a median income of over $22,000, a super majority to close corporate tax loopholes, raise rates at the top back to where they were during the clinton administration -- with and creating that bias in the constitution -- a minute ago, you said your budget passed by a majority vote. you are right.

you guys are the majority. if there was a budget, under this provision, that got a majority vote, but there was not a 2/3 vote, you would not be able to send it over to the senate. i think it is a huge mistake to change the constitution in that way. >> that is certainly a debate we will have tomorrow. >> from where does that provision come? you are a member of this body. you believe in the traditions of this house. there are very few things that

have more than a majority required to make them happen. is there something about the nature of this crisis and the precipices it since the country off of that lead to to take this radical step? >> we have to understand the gravity of the situation. we are approaching 95% of gdp for our debt, and there is no end in sight. there is a lot of lip service to the idea that we want to reduce the deficit, but we have yet to see a plan. we do not have anything in writing. but offering a balanced budget amendment, we have to get 3/4 of the states to agree. it should be something this body contemplates very deeply as we look at raising revenues -- in other words, raising taxes. that is something this body should take seriously. it should be a high threshold. >> is there a democrat balanced budget proposal out there that does not include the

supermajority? is there a balanced budget proposal offered by one of your colleagues to support in lieu of this proposal? >> i support the proposal the president put forward at george washington university, where he set out a plan to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over 12 years and laid out the criteria for doing that. essentially, it amounted to $3 in cuts for every dollar of revenue, which is similar to the thing that simpson-bowles took forward. >> is that similar to the proposal with the budget director said, "i cannot score at a speech?" >> cbo has not scored the republican budget either. no it has not. >> i will have to yield to my friend. >> i think you brought up the issue about the president picked speech. -- the president's speech. could he submit that in writing to us, the speech referred to?

could he submit that to congress and allow the house of representatives to see that, something i can pick up and look at? could he do that? >> he has, along with the other attachments that fleshed out the details of the proposal. >> has he submitted anything, to your knowledge, the u.s. house of representatives in writing, in reference to what you are referring to? >> if you are asking whether he made a formal submission to the united states congress, no. but he made a public speech. >> i would suggest that perhaps if there is no objection we might enter the president picked speech into the record of this committee so it is

officially on the record of the rules committee of congress. if there is no objection, i would like to submit that. >> without objection. >> thank you. >> i have had an opportunity to look at the distributional pages of who pays taxes and who pays income taxes. you talk about a majority vote to cut medicare or social security. medicare and social security receipts come in directed to social security. that are directed from the payroll tax. the government has no choice but to send them back out. the same thing with the trust fund. those must go back out. primarily, we are talking about other pots of money. 52% of the american people now are paid 100% of the income tax in this country. that is where we are good to find the money to pay back our debt. the top 10% of income earners are paying 40% of the taxes in

this country. i would ask my friends to take that logical next step with me. this is about shared sacrifice. every penny of that we rack up is going to be paid by exactly the people that you want to pay for it. the rather than taxing them in the middle of the toughest economic times in our country, when we need every job creator doing everything we can, we will have to go back and get that money from them later. but if anybody is under the suspicion is not the highest income earners in this country who will pay back every dime of this, they need to look at the distributional tables i am looking at. i know absolutely who is paying it back. it is good to be exactly the folks you want on the hook for it. but let us get this balanced budget passed tomorrow. >> when i ran for congress the first time in 2008, people would ask the press supported the balanced budget amendment. i said that i think congress should balance the budget and if they don't should be replaced

by a congress that does. in 2010, running again, i saw that congress had not balance the budget, neither democrats nor republicans. i said congress cannot seem to do it. maybe we need to change how we do it. i've thought about it further and come to the conclusion in this congress that i would support a balanced budget amendment. i think you would find, in fact, sufficient support on my side of the aisle to be very close to 2/3 of the congress for a balanced budget amendment. it would require that total outlays not exceed total receipts. then you have a separate capital budget. i think most states have bounced budget amendments. my state does. we allow for borrowing for capital projects, just as we do

in the private-sector. what is being proposed is not a simple balanced budget amendment. there are two other components that in my opinion rendered it offensive, effectively taking away the power of the people in our democracy, namely the one that contains a spending limitation as a percentage of gdp and requires that tax increases be approved by a 2/3 vote in the house of congress. i do not think we should have the floor on percentage of gdp. i do not think there should be an amendment that says government spending has to be at least 23% of gdp. it is a prerogative of the future congress. if the country wants to have 30% or 5%, that is what we elect congress for. requiring a majority for tax increases -- that is what we do.

you might as well make it a two-thirds majority for spending cuts. you will have a judge balancing the budget because congress will not be able to do it. many of us in this body have come to support a balanced budget amendment, recognizing it needs 2/3. how is it in line with our democratic republic expressed in the constitution to say the american people can elect a congress -- why is that the power you want to take away from the people of this country? >> we are not trying to take power away. we are trying to empower. i see this as something done at the state level. i think this is something people are demanding. i think this is in powering. >> the people elect a congress

that wants to spend 24% of gdp. >> what we are doing right now -- >> if there is a congress that wants 24%, that is probably what it should be. >> that has not worked. that is why we are 14.5 trillion dollars in debt. >> what has the work is that the budget has not been balanced. there is no magic number. what is the science that leads to this? what is the final number it comes up to in 10 years? 19.7% of gdp? >> there is a statutory cap of 19.9%. but the balanced budget amendment just says there should be one but does not specify what it is. >> any arbitrary number, any number -- there is no science behind it. it takes the representation out of our democracy.

>> we have several instances where we have different thresholds at different levels. as i mentioned, 3/4 of the states would have to ratify in order to pass the balanced budget amendment. in this body, you would have to get 290 measures. when you take a dramatic step like that, there are different levels. >> a balanced budget amendment, constructed appropriately, could very well reach that threshold. but when you talk about putting fiscal policy in the constitution, there are many people, and i would hope republicans among them, who would oppose that on principle, just as you would say the -- to say it should be over or under a certain amount. to put fiscal policy based on arbitrary percentages in the constitution takes a major

power away from the people and the congress. >> i guess i would disagree with that last part of it. i am encouraged that you support a balanced budget amendment. i know you are asking a question i will try to answer. would you support this bill if it had a different balanced budget requirement? >> again, there are 2 we will flaws with this. one is the supermajority for raising taxes without requiring a similar supermajority for cutting spending. they both should require a regular majority. we have both seen how hidebound the senate is, requiring 60 votes. can you imagine how high band -- hidebound this congress would be? i think that is a recipe for a logjam. the other thing would be to enshrine an arbitrary number. it does not matter what that

number is. when you are proposing a limitation to the constitution that said the government share of gdp had to be in excess of 22%, would you oppose the amendment? >> i probably would. >> saying that, you can understand why people would oppose this amendment. >> what we are suggesting is that you have to get to 290 votes. we will have to come together in a bipartisan way. the beauty of the way we have laid out this bill is it best up move forward. it does not achieve the president's goal of raising the debt ceiling by $2.40 trillion, unless we do come together in a bipartisan way. i think that is a good signal to send to the senate and the markets that we are going to come together and figure out what that balanced budget amendment is quick to look like. >> in closing, i would like to encourage the committee to consider an open rule whereby we can craft an amendment that muster sufficient support and perhaps includes some of these modifications will talk about

today. i think through the open rule on this bill, and perhaps by eliminating the components of this amendment that are not related to a balanced budget, we can come up with a balanced budget amendment that we can send to the states. >> thank you. >> how did you come up with, in your numbers, and getting to 19.9% of gdp at the end of this? there are a lot of us that which the government would go cold turkey on its deficit spending. the reality is when we are having to borrow 40 cents out of every dollar to sustain ourselves, it is very difficult to make that cold turkey. we tried to create a glide path where we can wean ourselves away and make decisions we understand.

at the beginning of the process, we are going to have to hit his target. almost 25 cents out of every dollar in this country is spent by the federal government. we want to get it down. it is just for the first 10 years. >> when we heard about the 18%, was that based on? >> if you look at the revenue to the treasury over the last 30, 40, and 50 years, revenue has traditionally been at 18%. please correct me if i am wrong, but i believe what he is referring to is a specific piece of legislation, a balanced budget amendment. this piece of legislation we are looking at does not specify it has to be one balanced budget or another. it says it may be this one or that one, or something similar. i believe that is what passed out of the judiciary committee recently after hearing a vote.

that is based on history of revenues from the treasury. >> if we tried to, could we raise taxes enough to meet our deficit spending? >> i think this is one of the town does. -- one of the challenges. there are is a lot of rhetoric, a lot of bumper stickers about corporate loopholes. show us in writing how that is ultimately going to solve the problem. it will make a difference here and there. we have to watch every penny. i get it. but how do you get to the point where we balance? he never balances. it triples the debt over the course of time. if you are going to say that

you want to reduce and get rid of the deficit, you want to reduce the debt, show us a plan that does that. at this point, we have no piece of paper. we have no document we can debate that says this is the democratic plan and it does that. if you want to put tax increases in it, that is your prerogative. but we are doing something responsible and say to states -- it will take seven to 10 years to go to this process of replication. >> but it is important we do that. >> absolutely. if we continue to spend unabated, which appears to be the way we are going, because it cannot even get to a balanced budget in the near term without having -- you hear about drastic cuts, but to get a

balanced budget today would be draconian cuts. we would not be able to live with that. >> one of the things we all need to fear is the verizon interest rates. given the amount of debt we have, that would cause economic hardship at every level that is unprecedented in this country. but was drawn out earlier that we have to be cognizant on is that moody's was looking to downgrade, regardless of whether we raise the debt ceiling. we have got to get our fiscal house in order. i think the imperative is right now we have to move on this right now. unfortunately, congress in the past has punted on this issue. we are no longer going to accept people punting. we actually have to do something. >> if the federal government bond rating is reduced, what does that do to every other bond rating in the country? >> it is thought to be pretty. i can tell you that. it is going to be very

difficult. we are going to see a rise in interest rates which is good to affect every sector. that is not what we want to do. we have to do with that. the market is watching us, moment by moment. we have an opportunity to do that. there is nobody on this side of the aisle that wants to raise the debt ceiling. we are trying to do in a responsible, bipartisan way. if somebody has another plan, introduced a bill to do it. >> i know you talked about this, but moody's, in regards to their crystal ball say that if we do nothing that are going to reduce our bond rating. it was mentioned before if we do and just do cuts but do not have a long-term solution, the same is going to happen. my understanding of this is that our bond rating is reduced, the government's bond rating. then no other bond rating can be higher than the government's.

so if we do not do something drastic, something important to show the rating companies that we are serious about getting our spending under control, not just talk about it, and that is for the balanced budget amendment comes into it, to show that congress is not going to just raise the caps like in the past and three or four years later override it -- if we do not do something, they are going to reduce our bond rating. that is going to affect every business in this country. >> absolutely. i would remind this body we did have a so-called clean debt ceiling vote.

it was overwhelmingly defeated. we did what the democrats and republicans who suggested it. it would raise the debt ceiling with no corresponding cuts. that was soundly defeated. we are trying to find the right balance and solve the long-term problem. that is what the markets are looking for. that is what my kids are looking for. that is why i came to this body. >> i appreciate your comments. i just hope this body can see the gravity of doing nothing. we are going to have to make some -- you talk about tough choices. with the initial budget, the republican budget, it talked about those issues. it talked about tax loopholes. i am amazed, as i sit here as a new member, listening to other members talk about tax loopholes and all these things everybody is grinding their teeth about -- we should have done things years ago, last

year, the year before. none of that has come to fruition. now a catastrophe stairs as in the face if we do not do anything. >> we still have questions to come from mr. fisher and scott. we have 2 votes running on the house floor. we have been here for two hours. thank you all. we hope you will be able to come back after those votes. we will reconvene for questions from the other three members of our panel, and then we will vote. the rules committee stands in recess until the ending of the second vote. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> the house rules committee voted to allow four hours of debate on deficit reduction legislation. they had four hours of debate on the legislation. we will have more about that in a moment. a number of investigations are taking place in the british parliament over the news corporation phone hacking allegations. this morning on c-span3, rupert murdoch and his son james murdoch will testify today. rebekah brooks resigned and was

arrested on sunday. coverage is underway at 9:30 a.m. eastern. >> now available, c-span and congressional directory. inside new and returning house and senate members with contact information, twitter addresses, district maps, and information on the white house, supreme court justices. order online. >> "washington journal" is next. we will take your phone calls. the house is in this morning at 10:00 eastern for speeches. they will discuss spending packages at noon eastern. the cut, cap, and balance legislation will be discussed along with possible amendments to the constitution. to the constitution.